Author Topic: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5  (Read 13330 times)

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #350 on: October 30, 2018, 10:41:49 AM »

Since you think I'm not doing anything, I do ask, what do you propose I do? 


I wrote something different than "you think I'm not doing anything."

As for proposals, I see too many people blindly telling others what to do, which I consider counterproductive and I don't want to repeat what I consider their mistakes. I don't know your goals, interests, values, motivations, etc. I don't even know if you want a proposal or, if you do, what you want it for.

You've seen the problems. Have they motivated you to change? My read is that you haven't. If you don't mind my being blunt, I read what you wrote not as optimism but justifying not doing anything, hoping someone else will fix your problem. I would be glad to learn I misread you. Are you doing anything more than waiting and hoping others fix the problem?

You literally said, to rearrange your words, "My read is that you have not been motivated to change.  What you wrote is a justification of not doing anything."

I saw your link posted, will read

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #351 on: October 30, 2018, 10:54:48 AM »
7th day Adventists are encouraged to follow a vegan diet, but only about 35% of them are. Likewise, the traditional Okinawan diet includes small amounts of fish and pork on a regular basis. To the best of my knowledge the scientific consensus is that humans are omnivores and may be vegan with careful monitoring of their diet. Most human populations are not equipped to have locally sourced vegan diet.

If I recall correctly, the 7th day Adventist longitudinal studies accounted for which were and were not vegan, and used them as an excellent comparison (literally neighbors) and found the vegans healthier

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the Okinawan study to have a good response, other than to say they got the vast majority of their calories from sweet potatoes


The point I really want to discuss, this is something that's caught my interest but I've never investigated it, what micronutrients would be absent from a locally sourced vegan diet, and how would consumption of animals (which are presumably eating a locally sourced vegan diet) alleviate the deficiency? 

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #352 on: October 30, 2018, 11:06:57 AM »
I find interesting is how the Republican party has positioned itself as being solidly anti-environment in everything it does.  This certainly wasn't the case in years past.  Richard Nixon (for his many faults) was a pretty pro-environment president, creating the NOAA, the EPA, passing the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc.  Teddy Roosevelt, Bush Sr. . . .  environmental issues don't have to only be Democratic issues, and weren't in the past.

+1

I like many of the commonly held republican points, but dislike the anti-environmental and pro-factory farming policies, among others

I like many of the commonly held democratic points, but dislike many policies, which I won't get into in this thread as they're not relevant


Infuriating how each side draws an arbitrary line in the sand and then defends it to the death

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #353 on: October 30, 2018, 11:10:20 AM »
Your examples of possible solutions fit the pattern of past technologies that increased efficiency. They lowered consumption per use but increased the number of uses, increasing total energy consumption and therefore pollution in the long term. I wrote about it in Inc When Innovation and Technology Fail Us and spoke about it on my podcast.

If you make a polluting system more efficient, it pollutes more efficiently.

Joshua, you continue to repeat this statement as if it was a universal law that increases in efficiency result in increases in resource consumption. There are certainly some situations where that is that case. However, as we discussed only two weeks ago on this same forum, there are also cases where increased efficiency decreases resource consumption. Specifically, we discussed how increases in fuel efficiency in the USA lead to decreased total national gasoline consumption, even when facing the headwinds of a growing population and gasoline prices which declined 31% in real terms, both of which would normally result in significant increases in total national gasoline consumption.

I wrote above that it has different effects in the long term and in the links that it depends on the demand curve -- that is, how many other uses there are at lower prices. For 300+ million people, 10 years doesn't feel like long-term, especially with significant social change in the meantime. Also, I'm not sure how much the demand for gas increases at lower prices or if we've saturated it.


How many years would you consider to be "long term"? While I'm not accusing you of this, the way you're now modifying your assertion could easily be used to make it completely non-falsifiable because any contradictory data which showed a case where an in resource use efficiency did not produce an increase in total consumption of that particular resource can be challenged as "well yes, but if we wait longer it might change."

Quote
It's also possible lower use is resulting from social change. Increasing portions of drivers recognize that they will feel the effects of global warming in their lifetimes while people who won't are dying off. They're seeing the pollution in their lives, corals dying, extinctions, etc.

Ah, but this doesn't get you off the hook. You are asserting that an increase in efficiency must cause an increase in consumption. So it's not enough to argue that the increase in efficiency isn't responsible for the decrease in consumption, you would need to argue that the decrease in consumption would have been even larger if we hadn't developed more fuel efficient cars.

That just doesn't pass the smell test to me. I'm happy to be convinced I'm wrong if you have convincing data to back it up, but at the moment it would certainly appear that there is at least once exception to your rule that increases in efficiency always produce increases in consumption, and where there is one exception, there are certainly likely to be other cases where increases in efficiency decrease demand (for example total demand for electricity).

Now to be clear, I'm not arguing that increases in efficiency cannot sometimes have unintended consequences. And if you wanted to argue that we should consider and model carefully the effects of specific advances in technology or efficiency with an awareness that the overall impacts can sometimes be counterintuitive, I'd be all for that.

But you are using your absolute rule to dismiss technological solutions generally as never effective as reducing resource use. And our history simply doesn't support that assertion.

Quote
I can say that the trend over centuries is clear: machines are more efficient than ever, we use them for more purposes as they become more efficient, and we pollute more than ever.

The problem with this argument is that is can work for anything that has been changing over time.

All I can say is that over centuries the trend is clear: the odds of dying in birth are down, fewer and fewer women are dying when delivering their first or second child, and we pollute more than ever.

All I can say is that over centuries the trend is clear: the number of distinct plant species the average person eats over the course of a year has decreased, today more than half of all our calories come, directly or indirectly from only three major grain crops, and we pollute more than ever.

All I can say is that over centuries the trend is clear: the total number of books written has continued to increase, today more people are literature than at any point in the past, and we pollute more than ever.

Quote
When people choose to pollute less, it's easy and often improves their lives. They're glad they did and wish they had earlier. I'm trying to promote that effect.

Having a laudable end goal does not make it acceptable to promote that end goal through the use of misleading or incomplete or incorrect assertions about the way the world works. Both on an ethical level and because it tends to backfire when you don't just damage your own credibility but that of all of us arguing on the same side.

norabird

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7018
  • Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #354 on: October 30, 2018, 01:04:51 PM »
This obituary of a reef scientist had some nice optimism in it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/optimist-who-believed-saving-corals/574240/

As far as meat goes, I'm going to keep trying, or at least intending, to reduce the meat and especially beef (but also soy, for rainforest deforestation reasons) in my diet.

diapasoun

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
  • Location: California
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #355 on: October 30, 2018, 01:25:49 PM »
The point I really want to discuss, this is something that's caught my interest but I've never investigated it, what micronutrients would be absent from a locally sourced vegan diet, and how would consumption of animals (which are presumably eating a locally sourced vegan diet) alleviate the deficiency?
Off the top of my head there are some indigenous tribes that are reliant upon animal sources of some very basic vitamins (ex., C) as opposed to what are common plant sources elsewhere.

Generally, B12 deficiencies are a source of concern for vegans and even some vegetarians.

Otherwise, the possibility and types of micronutrient deficiencies are going to depend on what's actually available locally. In some areas of the US, there's selenium deficiencies in the soil that can lead to selenium deficiencies in you if you're truly relying on local vegetables for your diet; including animal protein can help you avoid the deficiency, since animal protein is generally a good source of selenium. In other areas of the US/Canada, getting local vegetables is actually just really hard, because the growing season is so short (see: Alaska, Yukon Territory, etc), so you might end up with a straight up caloric deficiency if you're trying to eat local and not eat meat.



magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #356 on: October 30, 2018, 01:37:33 PM »
Off the top of my head there are some indigenous tribes that are reliant upon animal sources of some very basic vitamins (ex., C) as opposed to what are common plant sources elsewhere.
Vitamin C is a good one to bring up, as we have a "broken" vitamin C gene and can't make it.  It's only a problem in certain remote areas though, where you have access to neither fruit nor green leafy plants.  Potatoes are an excellent source


Usually I hear "muh B12! muh Iron!" Which are both dumb,  B12 as it is in the water in the wild (and easy to supplement in civilization), and iron as plants are a better source than meat anyway.  DW recently had bloodwork done and after one year vegan is finally not iron deficient for the first time ever

As far as meat goes, I'm going to keep trying, or at least intending, to reduce the meat and especially beef (but also soy, for rainforest deforestation reasons) in my diet.

Good job!  I found it really easy once I realized i couldn't care less about the taste of the plain meat itself, it's just how it's seasoned.

Regarding the soy, quick search, only 6% or something is actually grown for human consumption, 70% to feed the aforementioned beef, the rest for soybean oil (which os a waste of soy IMO), so cutting out beef will have a much bigger impact than cutting out soy.  After that soy oil, and then I personally wouldn't see the point in cutting out tofu and tempeh, since they're so good for you, but if you do all you're missing out on is an easy protein source, other beans and lentils are great too

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #357 on: October 30, 2018, 02:19:19 PM »
The point I really want to discuss, this is something that's caught my interest but I've never investigated it, what micronutrients would be absent from a locally sourced vegan diet, and how would consumption of animals (which are presumably eating a locally sourced vegan diet) alleviate the deficiency?
Off the top of my head there are some indigenous tribes that are reliant upon animal sources of some very basic vitamins (ex., C) as opposed to what are common plant sources elsewhere.

Generally, B12 deficiencies are a source of concern for vegans and even some vegetarians.

Otherwise, the possibility and types of micronutrient deficiencies are going to depend on what's actually available locally. In some areas of the US, there's selenium deficiencies in the soil that can lead to selenium deficiencies in you if you're truly relying on local vegetables for your diet; including animal protein can help you avoid the deficiency, since animal protein is generally a good source of selenium. In other areas of the US/Canada, getting local vegetables is actually just really hard, because the growing season is so short (see: Alaska, Yukon Territory, etc), so you might end up with a straight up caloric deficiency if you're trying to eat local and not eat meat.

See my previous post on the B12 thing, there are plenty of natural sources, and supplementing is ridiculously cheap.  It wouldn't be hard to add it to the water like flouride

In really remote northern areas, you'll have a hard time getting locally sourced calories of any sort, even meat.  The populations that have grown there can't be supported, that's why groceries in Alaska can be insanely expensive.  Yes, you can't be vegan in the artic circle


Localized selenium deficiency in the soil isn't something I was aware of, and it's interesting. If you're eating local meat, I'd think the animals you're eating will also be selenium deficient, as they have to get it from somewhere as well.  They will, of course, concentrate it for you and make it easier, but they don't produce it. If you were trying to get it locally, cruciferae (cabbage and mustard) have shown to be very good at up taking selenium from the soil, along with fungi and other tubers.  Grains not so much. Good to know.


I'm pretty sure that anywhere plants grow well is somewhere it's easy to meet vegan requirements.  When people insist on living places where nothing grows, they have to ship in the nutrition one way or another.

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #358 on: October 30, 2018, 02:22:56 PM »
Sorry, just realized I've derailed this thread into a vegan micronutrient discussion, we can get back to talking about climate change ending the world now

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #359 on: October 30, 2018, 02:53:04 PM »
When people insist on living places where nothing grows, they have to ship in the nutrition one way or another.

With the risk to derail this even further: no we don't. Just stop polluting the oceans and ruining the climate, and the Arctic people will do just fine on a traditional diet of marine mammals, fish, reindeer, sheep, rhubarb, and root vegetables. Sure, it is nice to trade fish and seal skins for grain and fruits to get a more varied diet, but the basis of the dietwill be just fine with local ingredients. You can't support as many people per sqare mile, as with vegetables, but there are not a lot of people who want to live in the cold north anyway. :)

I am fully in favor of a more plant based diet globally, and actively support vegan friends in their choices. But vegan is not the only way to reduce climate emissions from our food. In the areas where we can't grow grains or vegetables, grazing animals and wild game is a good way to grow food. With the right agronomical methods, it is possible to reduce climate emissions per animal substantially. And if you take it a bit further, the carbon footprint of whale meat has been calculated to ~2.9 kg CO2/kg meat, about the same as potatoes (not 100 % sure I trust that number, the source might be a bit biased).

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #360 on: October 30, 2018, 03:29:04 PM »
I was referring more to Las Vegas than Alaska with the shipping it in comment, humans have set up shop some places that just flat out aren't sustainable.  The area surrounding las Vegas could support like 2 people, not 2 million


I agree we'll never get 100% vegan, look at how many people still smoke even though it's such an illogical and known terrible thing to do to yourself, but I think in a few decades we will look at non-vegan diets the way we currently look at smoking


And yes, I've seen that optimum land usage involves some grazing livestock, I don't disagree with that.  Ever driven through west texas? It's not good for much else.  There a million better ways to utilize rainforest though. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7361
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #361 on: October 30, 2018, 03:47:08 PM »
I think in a few decades we will look at non-vegan diets the way we currently look at smoking

I agree that future humans will look at today's American style diets and scratch their heads.  People voluntarily ate twinkies and french fries every single day?  Were they trying to kill themselves?

But I'm not so sure the future is vegan.  It's definitely a lot lower on the meat consumption scale than our current diets, but it's probably not strictly zero animal products either.

The problem with this is that animal husbandry is a huge and profitable industry.  We can't get rid of it for the same reason we can't get rid of the American health insurance industry, or oil companies.  Too many rich people will spend too much money to lobby politicians to protect their interests.  It doesn't matter if abolishing hamburgers is the right choice medically, environmentally, and economically.  Some rich dude in a big hat makes his millions on making you sick while destroying the earth, and he'll happily spend those millions today so that he can keep making more millions tomorrow.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #362 on: October 30, 2018, 04:40:15 PM »
I'm pretty sure that anywhere plants grow well is somewhere it's easy to meet vegan requirements.  When people insist on living places where nothing grows, they have to ship in the nutrition one way or another.
There in lies the rub though, speaking in terms of planetary systems, people live in a lot more places than where diverse editable flora grow. Part of the reason why the humans have been successful as a species is due to being able to adapt our diet to what can be found locally. In fact one of the best species of evidence that humans aren't meant to be herbivores is successful populations in areas where they have a predominately animal based died.

I am fully in favor of a more plant based diet globally, and actively support vegan friends in their choices. But vegan is not the only way to reduce climate emissions from our food. In the areas where we can't grow grains or vegetables, grazing animals and wild game is a good way to grow food. With the right agronomical methods, it is possible to reduce climate emissions per animal substantially. And if you take it a bit further, the carbon footprint of whale meat has been calculated to ~2.9 kg CO2/kg meat, about the same as potatoes (not 100 % sure I trust that number, the source might be a bit biased).
So one of the big things in sustainability is life cycle assessment and life cycle thinking. In short, you don't just assess the environmental impact of something in terms of one part of a supply chain, but the entire life cycle of a product including the manufacturing (or growing) or sub-components. As a result you can encounter some very counter intuitive results based upon the local situation. I think this is the study you are talking about: "Eat whale and save the planet" which noted the following:

Quote
The survey, focused on whale boats’ fuel use, showed that a kilo (2.2 lbs) of whale meat represented just 1.9 kilo (4.2 lbs) of greenhouse gases against 15.8 for beef, 6.4 for pork and 4.6 for chicken.

That figure actually makes sense since the only time you would really see green house gas (GHG) emissions introduced into the system would be harvest and transport to market. I suspect they aren't taking into account lifetime GHG emissions of the animals, but for free range catches it kind of makes sense not to. A lot of the studies of domesticated animals take into account lifetime GHG emissions since we assume that the herds would no longer be supported if we didn't consume them (side note, the US currently has 94.4 million cattle, feral cattle populations in the US are very low and generally considered nuisance animals since they aren't indigestion to North America).

However, to go back to an early point I made, if people simply reduced the amount of meat in their diets (again, most people in the US already eat a couple ovo-lacto vegetarian meals per week as it is) through intuitiveness such as Meatless Monday things would shift a lot more than people might think.

The likely largest issue with the carbon footprint calculations for whale meat, is that there are some quite good arguments made for living whales being net carbon negative: https://www.pacificwhale.org/2017/05/17/fact-of-the-week-whales-play-a-crucial-role-in-the-carbon-cycle/ But these are complex biological processes, and I wish we could get some good neutral studies on whether harvesting some of the marine mammal species that have viable populations would make a difference in the total marine carbon budget. For other game meat, the studies I have seen indicate that if you e.g. have a relatively large deer population, a number of animals will die of hunger or be eaten by other predators. Therefore, the relative carbon footprint of humans eating that deer meat can be calculated based on the emissions from hunting and processing, ignoring biological processes. But there are so many feelings regarding marine mammals, that it is difficult to figure out whether some of the populations are at a balancing point (where our harvesting would make little difference), or if there is a potential for further population growth and increased carbon capture. Nammco have some good arguments for harvesting, but they are also a biased source: https://nammco.no

These are not arguments for keeping up our current levels of meat eating. By turning to grazing animals and wild game, we cannot produce the same amount of prime beef. But for those of us living in inhospitable areas, it might be a better choice than importing soy beans, if we do it the right way.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #363 on: October 30, 2018, 05:06:49 PM »
Sidestepping the conversation about vegan/not vegan (because, frankly, it's pointless--are you really going to argue about the finer points of less meat vs. no meat while the world burns? really? we need a complete overhaul of the entire system, not a few minor gestures).

Here's what I've been mulling over.

We on these boards have a collective insane amount of money. We also have amazing go-getters and people with incredible skills, talents, whathaveyou. So far we're funneling most of our money, time, resources, talents, into making a lot of money in a short amount of time to invest that in index funds and tax-free accounts. Why are we not utilizing even a tiny portion of the power we have toward environmental goals? Like, why have we not set up a private fund to take a bigger hand in what's actually happening? I'm thinking here of doing things like buying rundown rural properties and making them into nature preserves. Studies have shown how very important having even a few acres of untouched nature can be for species. Why are we not buying tracts of land and reforesting? We're very fond of charity here, to the point that we argue about whose charitable donations are "best" and most valuable. We're even more fond of investing. Why are we not investing in the future of our planet, and the species we share it with?

If you're so concerned about farming, why are we not working with groups to create better farming systems a la Geoff Lawton? Why are we not buying rundown properties to create urban gardens in poor neighborhoods, complete with classes (cooking, gardening) to help educate people? We could even do small scale animal husbandry (chickens) and beekeeping, depending on the city, to help people wean off CAFOs.

In other words, why are we not putting our money and our skills where our mouths are? I would work for this in a heartbeat.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #364 on: October 30, 2018, 05:17:38 PM »
Inertia?    Movements need a leader!

chaskavitch

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #365 on: October 30, 2018, 05:24:45 PM »
Sidestepping the conversation about vegan/not vegan (because, frankly, it's pointless--are you really going to argue about the finer points of less meat vs. no meat while the world burns? really? we need a complete overhaul of the entire system, not a few minor gestures).

Here's what I've been mulling over.

We on these boards have a collective insane amount of money. We also have amazing go-getters and people with incredible skills, talents, whathaveyou. So far we're funneling most of our money, time, resources, talents, into making a lot of money in a short amount of time to invest that in index funds and tax-free accounts. Why are we not utilizing even a tiny portion of the power we have toward environmental goals? Like, why have we not set up a private fund to take a bigger hand in what's actually happening? I'm thinking here of doing things like buying rundown rural properties and making them into nature preserves. Studies have shown how very important having even a few acres of untouched nature can be for species. Why are we not buying tracts of land and reforesting? We're very fond of charity here, to the point that we argue about whose charitable donations are "best" and most valuable. We're even more fond of investing. Why are we not investing in the future of our planet, and the species we share it with?

If you're so concerned about farming, why are we not working with groups to create better farming systems a la Geoff Lawton? Why are we not buying rundown properties to create urban gardens in poor neighborhoods, complete with classes (cooking, gardening) to help educate people? We could even do small scale animal husbandry (chickens) and beekeeping, depending on the city, to help people wean off CAFOs.

In other words, why are we not putting our money and our skills where our mouths are? I would work for this in a heartbeat.

Because you're a genius and we're not?  Those are amazing ideas.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #366 on: October 30, 2018, 05:27:33 PM »
Inertia?    Movements need a leader!

So what you're saying is that I should just start recruiting the top FIREd talent needed for something like this?

We'd need:

A lawyer, to discuss the legal and tax implications.
Someone versed in setting up businesses, I think?
People who know how to recruit, and others who know how to sell an idea. Go big or go home, right? Let's get everyone on board.
Sustainability managers, to ensure that our project actually help rather than hurting.
People well versed in real estate.
People to take care of the minutiae, and people to be actually doing the work on the ground. That is, if we set up urban gardens then we need someone to step up and find those who could teach classes, and do the hard work of actually setting up a garden.

What am I missing?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7361
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #367 on: October 30, 2018, 07:07:42 PM »
why are we not putting our money and our skills where our mouths are? I would work for this in a heartbeat.

Probably for the same reason we never got a mustachian tradeline company going, despite lots of interested people with the right experience and a potential profit motive.  Some one individual has to stand up and say "I'm doing this" and lead the way, take the first steps, and then ask for support. 

magnet18

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 158
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #368 on: October 30, 2018, 08:43:42 PM »
I don't have the moneybags to buy them, but I can point you towards half a dozen run down rural properties around where I am

In Indiana, you can get paid to both reforest, and to leave a natural wetland alone, not a bad starting point.  I have co-workers that have done both, and can get info, but I'm sure it's readily available online


I don't know anything about urban gardens though.  I am not a city person, they make me uncomfortable, can't help you there

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #369 on: October 30, 2018, 09:31:58 PM »
I don't have the moneybags to buy them, but I can point you towards half a dozen run down rural properties around where I am

In Indiana, you can get paid to both reforest, and to leave a natural wetland alone, not a bad starting point.  I have co-workers that have done both, and can get info, but I'm sure it's readily available online


I don't know anything about urban gardens though.  I am not a city person, they make me uncomfortable, can't help you there

Thanks for the tip! I'll look into that.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #370 on: October 31, 2018, 01:06:02 AM »
I think in a few decades we will look at non-vegan diets the way we currently look at smoking

I agree that future humans will look at today's American style diets and scratch their heads.  People voluntarily ate twinkies and french fries every single day?  Were they trying to kill themselves?

But I'm not so sure the future is vegan.  It's definitely a lot lower on the meat consumption scale than our current diets, but it's probably not strictly zero animal products either.

The problem with this is that animal husbandry is a huge and profitable industry.  We can't get rid of it for the same reason we can't get rid of the American health insurance industry, or oil companies.  Too many rich people will spend too much money to lobby politicians to protect their interests.  It doesn't matter if abolishing hamburgers is the right choice medically, environmentally, and economically.  Some rich dude in a big hat makes his millions on making you sick while destroying the earth, and he'll happily spend those millions today so that he can keep making more millions tomorrow.

Recognizing these points Sol, is precisely why I did this: https://www.lobbyists4good.org/animal-ag-subsidies

Having raised $5k, this kid is going to DC to lobby congress on behalf of the future.

When I see the future, and think what I would like to see, my idealistic preference is a vegan world. It's not just an animal cruelty issue, it's an oppression issue. If there's no need to oppress non-human animals, I want us to just fucking stop already. Besides, when we end oppression to all animals, human and non-human alike, humanity itself will be better for it.

But practically speaking, if we moved to a mostly vegan world, where default options are always vegan foods*, and people have to request animal foods and products, I could get behind driving to that. I understand that people are very hung up on their cultural norms, habits, nutritional notions and moving such people to an absolutist future is likely impossible. One main goal (among many) environmentally speaking is to get the ruminant biomass down to about 5% of what it is today (more or less).

After reading through the nutritional side-discussion here, I don't want to derail further, but just quickly - for those who want to explore adopting more vegan meals into their daily routine, and do it safely, I highly recommend you do challenge22.com.
 
A person who eats the std western diet and simply cuts out meat, dairy and eggs will be nutrient deficient simply because the std western diet non-animal foods are usually highly processed and stripped of fiber and other phytonutrients.

Anyway, challenge22.com guides you through adopting a whole-food-plant-based challenge for a month. There are certified dietitians on staff who are there to answer all questions about micro and macro nutrients. You get this advice all while getting help from long time plant eaters to come up with ways of subbing out animal products for plant ingredients in baking and cooking and bbqing and  vegan hot-wing-making.

*and other vegan products (low C low polluting vegan clothes, cosmetics, etc)

« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 01:10:20 AM by Malaysia41 »

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #371 on: October 31, 2018, 01:20:08 AM »
Sidestepping the conversation about vegan/not vegan (because, frankly, it's pointless--are you really going to argue about the finer points of less meat vs. no meat while the world burns? really? we need a complete overhaul of the entire system, not a few minor gestures).

Here's what I've been mulling over.

We on these boards have a collective insane amount of money. We also have amazing go-getters and people with incredible skills, talents, whathaveyou. So far we're funneling most of our money, time, resources, talents, into making a lot of money in a short amount of time to invest that in index funds and tax-free accounts. Why are we not utilizing even a tiny portion of the power we have toward environmental goals? Like, why have we not set up a private fund to take a bigger hand in what's actually happening? I'm thinking here of doing things like buying rundown rural properties and making them into nature preserves. Studies have shown how very important having even a few acres of untouched nature can be for species. Why are we not buying tracts of land and reforesting? We're very fond of charity here, to the point that we argue about whose charitable donations are "best" and most valuable. We're even more fond of investing. Why are we not investing in the future of our planet, and the species we share it with?

If you're so concerned about farming, why are we not working with groups to create better farming systems a la Geoff Lawton? Why are we not buying rundown properties to create urban gardens in poor neighborhoods, complete with classes (cooking, gardening) to help educate people? We could even do small scale animal husbandry (chickens) and beekeeping, depending on the city, to help people wean off CAFOs.

In other words, why are we not putting our money and our skills where our mouths are? I would work for this in a heartbeat.

^^^ this is a key part of that L4G lobbying campaign. Rather than paying billions a year to farmers to produce environmentally damaging products that consumers are not buying anymore, pay farmers to transition to low-C / low-polluting businesses (farm related or no), to environmentally beneficial farming practices growing food for human consumption, or just frickin' retiring already.  There's no reason this couldn't include some funding for buying properties and rehabbing into their natural original states.

The crowdfund is at $5k for a month of lobbying, but there's nothing stopping us going further.

Seriously SisX, THIS is what my FIRE is dedicated to. I'm leading about 60 local vegan activists in the town I live in, moving them away from fucking shouting at people through megaphones (eye-roll), and toward having heartfelt non-judgey conversations with people. I'm bringing an ad campaign here to plant seeds in the minds of the wider population. We're doing a book talk at the library. Taking Italian menu transition guidelines to local restaurants so they can augment their menus with delicious vegan meals that even a red-blooded carnist can enjoy on occasion.

Yes I'm vegan for all animals, human and non-human alike, but my activism is 100% for the environment and humanity's future. Please - join me. Maybe I'll start a thread on MMM. I'm just now figuring out my media strategy for communicating with supporters. And if I start a thread just for lobbying, I can do less derailing here.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 01:23:53 AM by Malaysia41 »

norabird

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7018
  • Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #372 on: October 31, 2018, 07:22:29 AM »
@SisterX, I would pay into that sort of thing! But I'm not exactly the usual laser-focused FIRE type either.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #373 on: October 31, 2018, 09:29:13 AM »
@SisterX, I would pay into that sort of thing! But I'm not exactly the usual laser-focused FIRE type either.

Start tagging people! Who would be good at organizing this kind of thing? Who would have necessary skills? Even if all you do is bring other people to the table with the necessary skills to get something like this off the ground, that's incredibly helpful!

I have no idea how to start looking into this, so having more experienced people on board is necessary. I can totally organize the people end of things, but I need people with more diverse skills than I have.

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #374 on: October 31, 2018, 09:31:47 AM »
I like this idea! I've thought of similar things, but never to the point of actually starting to do something. If we had a dedicated thread to brainstorm and organize and put together a team, I'd for sure be interested in getting involved in some capacity.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #375 on: October 31, 2018, 10:02:24 AM »

diapasoun

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
  • Location: California
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #376 on: October 31, 2018, 12:16:04 PM »
I like this idea! I've thought of similar things, but never to the point of actually starting to do something. If we had a dedicated thread to brainstorm and organize and put together a team, I'd for sure be interested in getting involved in some capacity.

I think there's a fair few of us who could get involved -- I know there are some of us who do or want to do carbon offsets (a re-wilding project could work great for that), or there's those of us involved in community gardens already. They might have great advice, and I think a dedicated thread could be a great idea. Talk about a good Throw Down The Gauntlet. ;)

I don't have a ton of $$, but I have fantastic research skills and a decent amount of drive. I can definitely help with looking up and researching options.

chaskavitch

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #377 on: October 31, 2018, 12:39:35 PM »
Slightly different topic, but I just received a survey from my city about how we should plan our future growth.  There were a LOT of questions about how much more public transport and bike/walking routes we should add and how they should be improved, should we increase our mixed-use urban and suburban areas for increased apartment/small townhome availability, can we re-zone our neighborhoods to add additional small houses (tiny houses and MIL apartments) to existing lots, etc.  They also had a number of infographics with estimates of how each option they were considering (and will likely mix) will contribute to a reduction in water use, decrease CO2 production, increase access to green spaces, and increase access to well marked bike paths. 

I'm pleasantly surprised with the questions and the direction the planning discussion is going, even if the end result isn't exactly what they've laid out. 

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1209
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #378 on: October 31, 2018, 03:32:35 PM »
I like this idea! I've thought of similar things, but never to the point of actually starting to do something. If we had a dedicated thread to brainstorm and organize and put together a team, I'd for sure be interested in getting involved in some capacity.

I think there's a fair few of us who could get involved -- I know there are some of us who do or want to do carbon offsets (a re-wilding project could work great for that), or there's those of us involved in community gardens already. They might have great advice, and I think a dedicated thread could be a great idea. Talk about a good Throw Down The Gauntlet. ;)

I don't have a ton of $$, but I have fantastic research skills and a decent amount of drive. I can definitely help with looking up and researching options.

I'm in.  I'm not an extroverted sales guy though, so I won't be pitching anyone.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #379 on: October 31, 2018, 05:47:12 PM »
I did it, you guys. I started a Throw Down the Gauntlet.

FWIW, I'm planning to quit my job at the end of the year. I will have much more "free time" (ha!) then to organize stuff. For now, I'd like to hear ideas and see what people come up with, how we would even move forward with such projects.

YYK

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Location: Scattered disc
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #380 on: November 07, 2018, 09:12:26 PM »
Now just find a green way to cross the atlantic..



Several container ship lines set aside cabins for passengers. You can get just about anywhere in the world on a ship, though not always directly to your desired destination. It's not cheap, around 100-150 USD per day, but you get a spacious cabin, a private head, a cabin steward, and three meals a day in the officers' wardroom. Personally, I'd rather pay less and bunk and mess with the crew but I guess that's not an option. Plus, you get to cross oceans on a ship like it's the 1890s. Pretty awesome in my opinion.

Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded.

I haven't done this myself, but I'm determined to see the world without getting on a plane, so it's something I will be doing in the future.

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #381 on: November 07, 2018, 10:54:57 PM »
I think in a few decades we will look at non-vegan diets the way we currently look at smoking

I agree that future humans will look at today's American style diets and scratch their heads.  People voluntarily ate twinkies and french fries every single day?  Were they trying to kill themselves?

But I'm not so sure the future is vegan.  It's definitely a lot lower on the meat consumption scale than our current diets, but it's probably not strictly zero animal products either.

The problem with this is that animal husbandry is a huge and profitable industry.  We can't get rid of it for the same reason we can't get rid of the American health insurance industry, or oil companies.  Too many rich people will spend too much money to lobby politicians to protect their interests.  It doesn't matter if abolishing hamburgers is the right choice medically, environmentally, and economically.  Some rich dude in a big hat makes his millions on making you sick while destroying the earth, and he'll happily spend those millions today so that he can keep making more millions tomorrow.

The future of meat consumption is lab grown meat (cultured meat). Real meat will be a rare treat. We're not even that far off, a few years before it'll start being in grocery stores/competing with real meat for price, and like 10-15 before it replaces most meat products.

Ducknald Don

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Oxford, UK
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #382 on: November 08, 2018, 02:25:07 AM »

Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded.


I think you could make that argument about almost any form of emissions, ultimately though your $150 per day is helping make the enterprise viable.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #383 on: November 08, 2018, 04:40:11 AM »
Now just find a green way to cross the atlantic..



Several container ship lines set aside cabins for passengers. You can get just about anywhere in the world on a ship, though not always directly to your desired destination. It's not cheap, around 100-150 USD per day, but you get a spacious cabin, a private head, a cabin steward, and three meals a day in the officers' wardroom. Personally, I'd rather pay less and bunk and mess with the crew but I guess that's not an option. Plus, you get to cross oceans on a ship like it's the 1890s. Pretty awesome in my opinion.

Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded.

I haven't done this myself, but I'm determined to see the world without getting on a plane, so it's something I will be doing in the future.

This guy is travelling the world without flying, and uses cargo ships regularly: http://www.onceuponasaga.dk/about
I would love to go on a cargo ship sometimes, but am not sure that I would like to travel as a single female.


Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded.

I think you could make that argument about almost any form of emissions, ultimately though your $150 per day is helping make the enterprise viable.
I would agree with you on most other transport modes, but not when it is on a cargo ship. A couple of passengers is like a mouse pissing in the ocean for them. There is a reason you don't see tourist ads for these types of journeys. Have you seen the carbon footprint calculations for goods transported by ship compared to other transport modes? The amount of stuff they have on those boats is mind blowing. And even if it turned out that the passengers made the trip profitable: great! The more goods we get from roads to sea transport, the better. We do need to adress the maritime CO2 emissions, force them to quite sailing on heavy oil, and get them to start using hybrid systems on batteries and/or fuel cells (biogas, ethanol, or hydrogen). But for transport of goods, there is no doubt that rail and keel are the best choices.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 05:05:15 AM by gaja »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3660
  • Location: Avalon
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #384 on: November 08, 2018, 04:50:50 AM »

Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded.


I think you could make that argument about almost any form of emissions, ultimately though your $150 per day is helping make the enterprise viable.

A big container ship easily costs up to $50k a day to run.

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Location: England
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #385 on: November 08, 2018, 05:05:12 AM »

Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded.


I think you could make that argument about almost any form of emissions, ultimately though your $150 per day is helping make the enterprise viable.

A big container ship easily costs up to $50k a day to run.

In general, a modern container ship is just about the most carbon-efficient way to travel long distances, even compared to walking or cycling. The record on oil leaks, plastic & solid waste pollution, NOX and sulphur emissions is not so great though.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #386 on: November 08, 2018, 10:39:46 AM »
Initiative 1631 was on the ballot in Washington State this year, and it appears to be going down. This is the second time an initiative of this flavor has been tried in WA, and the second time it has been voted down.

https://crosscut.com/2018/11/washington-voters-reject-carbon-fees-second-time

There was a lot of disinformation out there about this, and I saw this as a bit of a referendum on how much individuals are willing to actually do to make a difference. The answer appears to be "not much." *sigh*

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #387 on: November 08, 2018, 11:09:43 AM »
Initiative 1631 was on the ballot in Washington State this year, and it appears to be going down. This is the second time an initiative of this flavor has been tried in WA, and the second time it has been voted down.

https://crosscut.com/2018/11/washington-voters-reject-carbon-fees-second-time

There was a lot of disinformation out there about this, and I saw this as a bit of a referendum on how much individuals are willing to actually do to make a difference. The answer appears to be "not much." *sigh*

My hope is that we'd see more public support the larger the unit of organization that was trying to put through the tax. If I was a voter in Washington, whether the carbon tax is imposed at the city, county, state, nation, or global level, my own sacrifice is the same, but the benefit I receive in terms of reduction in the level of climate change I'll experience over my lifetime gets much bigger with each increase in scale.

And after all, look at Canada for an example of a bunch of individuals who are willing to make the same sacrifice.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7361
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #388 on: November 08, 2018, 11:10:38 AM »
Initiative 1631 was on the ballot in Washington State this year, and it appears to be going down. This is the second time an initiative of this flavor has been tried in WA, and the second time it has been voted down.

My entire city is just wallpapered in yard signs paid for by the oil industry that say "Vote No on the Unfair Energy Tax".  Like there are so many of them that they covered up other political campaign signs.  The carbon lobby poured some serious money into defeating that ballot initiative.

I tried to point out that it's not an energy tax, it's a pollution tax.  My roof makes energy, tax free because it is pollution free.  But like Trump's twitter habit, it's hard to insert facts into the discussion when the biggest megaphone is shouting the same simple lie a thousand times a day.  Even when the lie is obvious, some part of it takes hold in the public psyche.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12096
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #389 on: November 08, 2018, 11:51:05 AM »
My entire city is just wallpapered in yard signs paid for by the oil industry that say "Vote No on the Unfair Energy Tax".  Like there are so many of them that they covered up other political campaign signs.  The carbon lobby poured some serious money into defeating that ballot initiative.

This is a really great example of how money is not speech, and allowing rich people/corporations to outspent others actually limits freedom of speech.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9264
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #390 on: November 08, 2018, 02:39:49 PM »

And after all, look at Canada for an example of a bunch of individuals who are willing to make the same sacrifice.


We are a bunch of socialists who love our universal health care and hate guns*, are we a good example to hold up?
 
*Um, I am being sarcastic here, but I imagine this is how a lot of more right-wing Americans see us?

KiwiSonya

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #391 on: November 08, 2018, 03:01:29 PM »
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.

I certainly agree that subsidizing alternatives is a good thing. However, I disagree with you that a carbon tax would have no value in the absence of those subsidies. In your particular example, if gasoline gets expensive enough in the absence of a train I predict that you would A) begin carpooling B) move much closer to work C) find another job, even one that pays much less, closer to your residence D) your employer would be willing to negotiate to let you work from home most of the time to avoid outcome C.

Now depending on your specific circumstances, some of those coping mechanisms might not be available (for example if you work at a job that requires your physical presence and activity, D wouldn't be feasible and you'd be forced to adopt one of the other three coping strategies, and if your job was located in an extremely expensive location, B might be unfeasible).

But if we made gas expensive enough and keep the price high enough for long enough, sooner or later you'd adopt one of the the four, or something else that hasn't occurred to me, and your gasoline consumption would decline dramatically. The outcomes would be less "fair" than with subsidies in that the poor would have their lives much more disrupted than the rich, but the changes in carbon emissions and lifestyle would still happen.
Great thread. Here in New Zealand we have found that a recent big spike in fuel prices (caused by exchange rate and increased fuel taxes) is driving a surge in biking in our cities and increasing demand for electric cars and electric bikes.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #392 on: November 08, 2018, 03:05:26 PM »

And after all, look at Canada for an example of a bunch of individuals who are willing to make the same sacrifice.


We are a bunch of socialists who love our universal health care and hate guns*, are we a good example to hold up?
 
*Um, I am being sarcastic here, but I imagine this is how a lot of more right-wing Americans see us?

Well I suppose it depends on whether it's a discussion about whether americans specifically are willing to sacrifice to reduce the effects of climate change or whether people generally are. Canada is clearly a useful datapoint for the second discussion.

It may or may not be for the first. Healthcare is a great example of a place where the USA and Canada went down really different paths. But if you compare random pairs of countries I'd still say Canadians is probably a better model for how how people will react in the USA, than, for example, trying to predict how the USA will react based on data from Koreans or the French.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9264
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #393 on: November 08, 2018, 04:41:41 PM »

And after all, look at Canada for an example of a bunch of individuals who are willing to make the same sacrifice.


We are a bunch of socialists who love our universal health care and hate guns*, are we a good example to hold up?
 
*Um, I am being sarcastic here, but I imagine this is how a lot of more right-wing Americans see us?

Well I suppose it depends on whether it's a discussion about whether americans specifically are willing to sacrifice to reduce the effects of climate change or whether people generally are. Canada is clearly a useful datapoint for the second discussion.

It may or may not be for the first. Healthcare is a great example of a place where the USA and Canada went down really different paths. But if you compare random pairs of countries I'd still say Canadians is probably a better model for how how people will react in the USA, than, for example, trying to predict how the USA will react based on data from Koreans or the French.

True, we are  more like Americans than citizens of the countries you mentioned.  But there are times I think the similarities are superficial - more telling is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" versus "peace, order and good government".

To stay on topic, this looks interesting . . .
https://newsroom.carleton.ca/story/carleton-launches-efficiency-canada/?utm_source=Carleton+Stories+%28Carleton+Now%2C+Today%40Carleton+and+Research+Works%29&utm_campaign=f2e72ec643-CARLETON_STORIES_MAILOUT_NOV_8_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f06564222d-f2e72ec643-441459973
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 04:43:18 PM by RetiredAt63 »

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3228
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #394 on: November 09, 2018, 01:48:11 AM »

True, we are  more like Americans than citizens of the countries you mentioned.  But there are times I think the similarities are superficial - more telling is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" versus "peace, order and good government".

What would the world look like if we all identified first and foremost, not by our nations, not by our religions, not by our sports teams, but simply as Earthlings?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12096
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #395 on: November 09, 2018, 07:22:30 AM »

True, we are  more like Americans than citizens of the countries you mentioned.  But there are times I think the similarities are superficial - more telling is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" versus "peace, order and good government".

What would the world look like if we all identified first and foremost, not by our nations, not by our religions, not by our sports teams, but simply as Earthlings?

We need a greater common enemy for this to happen.  Alien invaders, off planet human colonies, it can be anything different . . . but without another group to hate it's really hard to pull together a large bunch of people.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9264
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #396 on: November 09, 2018, 07:33:06 AM »

True, we are  more like Americans than citizens of the countries you mentioned.  But there are times I think the similarities are superficial - more telling is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" versus "peace, order and good government".

What would the world look like if we all identified first and foremost, not by our nations, not by our religions, not by our sports teams, but simply as Earthlings?

We need a greater common enemy for this to happen.  Alien invaders, off planet human colonies, it can be anything different . . . but without another group to hate it's really hard to pull together a large bunch of people.

My friend's choir is singing 2 great songs, Oscar Peterson/Harriette Hamilton 's Hymn to Freedom, and Let there be peace on earth (lyrics Sy Miller/Jill Jackson, music Jay Althouse).  Unfortunately we seem to be built to need an in group (that we belong to) and an out group (the "other").  If it isn't skin colour it is language, or religion, or urban/rural, something, anything. Plus isn't there social research that show people do best socially in groups of about 150 or less?  Anything that gets us into bigger groups is already managing something unusual, the bigger the group the more it gets away from the 150 people.

JoshuaSpodek

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Location: Manhattan
    • Leadership, values, meaning, purpose, importance, passion
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #397 on: November 09, 2018, 08:15:07 AM »
"Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded."

This is the "logic" that everyone everywhere uses that is pushing us above a few degrees Celsius warming and filling the oceans with plastic.

Most of the stuff the ships are carrying is unnecessary junk to be used once and thrown away, each consumer using the same "logic."

As @Ducknald Don wrote, you pay to ride, meaning you pay for your share of the fuel.

What's great about physics and math is that they can do what nature does. They can tell the difference between zero and non-zero, which is not a matter of opinion.

What's great about leadership is that it can make telling that difference and acting on it meaningful. Holding oneself accountable and acting by one's values instead of trying to sweep incidents of acting against one's values under the rug ultimately improves one's life. Integrity is hard, but worth it, at least in my experience.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #398 on: November 09, 2018, 08:42:30 AM »
"Obviously the ship burns fuel, but unlike airlines or cruise ships they steam with or without passengers, so I think it's fair to say that the effective carbon cost of your voyage is zero. Your ~250lbs of person and luggage is a speck of dust on these behemoths that can weigh 40,000 tons or more fully loaded."

....

As @Ducknald Don wrote, you pay to ride, meaning you pay for your share of the fuel.

What's great about physics and math is that they can do what nature does. They can tell the difference between zero and non-zero, which is not a matter of opinion.

Okay, so let's calculate what your share of the emissions are.

A 747 plane emits ~500 grams of carbon dioxide per ton of cargo per kilometer. A cargo ship ~55 grams (source).

So a person who weighs 250 lbs carrying all of their luggage who takes a cargo ship from San Francisco to Beijing will emit 55 * (250/2205 lbs/metric ton) * 9500 km = 59 kg of carbon dioxide. The same person, flying the same distance would result in carbon dioxide emissions of 538 kg so a total reduction in emissions from choosing the ship of 89%.

If I could get people to cut their carbon budgets by 89% I'd be pretty darn happy and don't consider it to conflict with my personal values. Obviously different people will have different values and ethics though.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 08:45:27 AM by maizeman »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7361
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #399 on: November 09, 2018, 08:57:01 AM »
This is the "logic" that everyone everywhere uses that is pushing us above a few degrees Celsius warming and filling the oceans with plastic.

You have to draw a line somewhere.  By the act of being alive, your physical body pumps out CO2 all day every day with every breath you take.  You are a non-zero carbon source, but you probably haven't decided to use "physics and math" to decide to stop breathing.  There is some non-zero amount of emissions that you have decided is a worthwhile cost of being alive, and you voluntarily choose to emit at least that much.  Where you draw that line is kind of up to you.

If one of your reasons for being alive is to see and experience the world we live in, and you've decided that travelling there is the way to do that, then I absolutely support the idea of doing it by ship rather than by plane.  Your total emissions, though still positive, will still be lower than if you had flown.  That's not a tragedy of the commons argument where you say "my contribution is too small to matter" it is a volumetric argument where you say "I am minimizing my contribution as much as I can while still living my life."

Different people just draw different lines for where "living my life" stops and wastefulness begins.  Are you still breathing?