Author Topic: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5  (Read 25467 times)

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2747
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #450 on: February 14, 2019, 03:07:56 PM »
I went to a family wedding in the fall and looked into taking the train. It would have taken my entire travel time just to get there. :(

Once you're retired and don't feel obligated to sell your time to a supposedly benevolent master, you can happily take the train and enjoy the ride.  You just have to shift your perspective a little.  Traveling by train becomes part of the trip to be enjoyed, rather than part you're trying to suffer through as quickly as possible to get on to the good parts.

Oh, I have no doubt about that. It would have taken four days, however, just to get there. And I was traveling solo with two small children. Or would have been. As it was my brother flew with us (he doesn't get vacation time, so he could not have done a two-week round trip, or whatever it would have been) so I had help. It wasn't just the time, it was everything else about it as well. The train would have been multiple stops in multiple different places, sometimes overnight, so hotel stays and then getting back to the train. With two small children. With the Demon Child and an infant. By myself.

When they're older, we are totally taking the train.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #451 on: February 15, 2019, 05:14:54 PM »
I went to a family wedding in the fall and looked into taking the train. It would have taken my entire travel time just to get there. :(

Once you're retired and don't feel obligated to sell your time to a supposedly benevolent master, you can happily take the train and enjoy the ride.  You just have to shift your perspective a little.  Traveling by train becomes part of the trip to be enjoyed, rather than part you're trying to suffer through as quickly as possible to get on to the good parts.

This. And in some cases, it really isn't all that much longer. My husband and I went from Minneapolis to Chicago by train last month. It took about 8 hours. Which is what it would have taken to drive, but without the stress. It took longer than a plane, yes. Except: A plane trip from MSP to Chicago takes about an hour. But you have to count the car travel to the airport, as well as the fact that you have to get to the airport early to go through security. And then it takes about half an hour to board before the takes off. And when you get to your destination, unless you have only carry-on bags, you have to go down to baggage claim and wait for that. And then, since airports are generally far outside the city, you have to get transportation into the city itself from the airport. And then there's the fact that all of this is stressful and unpleasant. Not to mention that the airplane itself is uncomfortable. So, a one-hour trip is actually much longer, and much higher on the unpleasantness factor.

Contrast that with how easy it was to get into the train, how comfortable it was, the fact that it was very low-stress, that the scenery was beautiful, that there was a dining car with good food, and that once we actually got to Chicago we were already in the middle of the city as soon as we arrived. Totally worth it if you have a little extra time.
I really wish there were more trains with sleeper cars. Time spent sleeping in a (relatively) comfortable bed does not count as travel time in my book.

RichCantante

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #452 on: February 15, 2019, 06:59:08 PM »
That's my next goal, going via sleeping car. Because on the 22-hour stretch I went, I missed lying flat. On the other hand, there wasn't a dull moment with the interesting conversations through the night in the observation car, the gorgeous scenery, the reading, the work I got done, etc. Two critical things: Bring a lot of fancy snacks. Good way to make friends, and if you can't sleep and you're hungry, the snack bar is closed at night. Also, the tourist line is the nice one, the commuter line is not as nice. Serviceable, but for observation cars, sleeper cars, dining on real china, etc, you choose the tourist line like the Coast Starlight. Also no wifi if you go coach. I didn't miss it because I have unlimited data on my phone, though there were a few dead spots of course. It really is a wonderful way to go. Oh and I took my kids. They DREW FOR HOURS and I couldn't believe it. You couldn't pay me to drive that distance. I have loved driving all my life but driving is overrated and rarely pleasurable because, hey, there aren't any "open roads" where I live anymore.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #453 on: February 16, 2019, 08:11:43 AM »
I have really enjoyed the little train travel I have done, and I am very sad that the city I've lived for almost 20 years has no passenger rail at all, nor do any cities within 4 hours' drive of me.  In fact, only one city that I have lived in during my entire life had passenger rail, and those lines didn't lead anywhere that I would have needed to travel (without making a week-long trip that meandered all over the place).  Lack of rail in the U.S. is a major bummer.

RichCantante

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #454 on: February 16, 2019, 09:48:01 AM »
Do you mind saying where you live, or what general part of the country?

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #455 on: February 16, 2019, 01:10:16 PM »
Do you mind saying where you live, or what general part of the country?

Great Plains.  I did live for about a decade in Tucson in the 90s, and there was passenger rail running from there, but it didn't go anywhere we normally traveled.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #456 on: February 20, 2019, 05:18:07 PM »
And meanwhile in institutional climate-denial land:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/climate/climate-national-security-threat.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Quote
According to a White House memo dated Feb. 14, Mr. Trump’s staff members have drafted an executive order to create a 12-member Presidential Committee on Climate Security that will advise Mr. Trump about “how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States.” The memo was first reported by The Washington Post.

The panel would include William Happer, a Princeton physicist who serves as Mr. Trump’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies. Dr. Happer has gained notoriety in the scientific community for his statements that carbon dioxide — the greenhouse gas that scientists say is trapping heat and warming the planet — is beneficial to humanity.

and

Quote
The White House memo notes that multiple scientific and defense reports have recently concluded that climate change poses a significant threat to national security, but it casts doubt on those reports, saying, “these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.”

SachaFiscal

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #457 on: May 18, 2019, 07:29:56 PM »
The problem isn't the climate change.  The elephant in the room is the size of the human population.  The earth can't sustain 7.5 billion people.

But, nobody wants to discuss it.

Hmmm....is Cache_Stache really Thanos? (hee hee)

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #458 on: May 18, 2019, 08:55:31 PM »
Impact = population x consumption.

People with low consumption say consumption is the problem. People with high consumption say population is the problem. In both cases, what they are really saying is that the impact is Somebody Else's Problem.

"Someone should do something, but not, of course, me."

I think we can casually dismiss such obviously self-serving arguments. But what we should recognise is that while most of us in the Western world can halve our consumption without much detriment to our lifestyles - and in fact improve it in some ways - within a few months, halving population in a few months would require a nuclear war. So we should begin by working on the consumption side of the equation.

Which, by the way, also saves us money. I believe there is a discussion forum somewhere dedicated to that...?

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2747
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #459 on: May 30, 2019, 11:20:39 PM »
Impact = population x consumption.

People with low consumption say consumption is the problem. People with high consumption say population is the problem. In both cases, what they are really saying is that the impact is Somebody Else's Problem.

"Someone should do something, but not, of course, me."

I think we can casually dismiss such obviously self-serving arguments. But what we should recognise is that while most of us in the Western world can halve our consumption without much detriment to our lifestyles - and in fact improve it in some ways - within a few months, halving population in a few months would require a nuclear war. So we should begin by working on the consumption side of the equation.

Which, by the way, also saves us money. I believe there is a discussion forum somewhere dedicated to that...?

Beautifully put.

I'm just as annoyed by the argument of individual action vs. government action on climate change. "Individual actions don't matter when corporations can just spew out C02 in massive quantities" is up against "But nothing will ever change if we, individually, won't bother to change". There is room for both sides of that argument to be correct. We need total systemic change AND individual change. At this point, since this issue has been ignored and even worsened since before I was born, we need a complete overhaul of EVERYTHING. Baby steps will not cut it. Conversely, we all need to at least take baby steps so that we can then take big steps and leaps and do the hard work that needs to be done.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #460 on: May 30, 2019, 11:43:40 PM »
Impact = population x consumption.

People with low consumption say consumption is the problem. People with high consumption say population is the problem. In both cases, what they are really saying is that the impact is Somebody Else's Problem.

"Someone should do something, but not, of course, me."

I think we can casually dismiss such obviously self-serving arguments. But what we should recognise is that while most of us in the Western world can halve our consumption without much detriment to our lifestyles - and in fact improve it in some ways - within a few months, halving population in a few months would require a nuclear war. So we should begin by working on the consumption side of the equation.

Which, by the way, also saves us money. I believe there is a discussion forum somewhere dedicated to that...?

Isn't the person with low consumption doing something tho by having low consumption? Do you mean doing something bigger e.g. encouraging other people to have low consumption through whatever method?

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #461 on: May 31, 2019, 03:09:29 AM »
Yes, reducing your consumption is doing something.

That it may not have a broader impact is irrelevant. In the days of segregation, the white person who treated black people with respect as individuals made no broader impact. A police officer in a corrupt department who refuses bribes makes no broader impact. The liquor store owner who refuses to serve the alcoholic makes no broader impact. Yet these were and are the right thing to do.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2126
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: IPCC Climate Report on 1.5
« Reply #462 on: May 31, 2019, 08:01:49 AM »