I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.
It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.
I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.
It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.
I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.
Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.
Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.
It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.
I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.
Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.
Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.
@wenchsenior That's a cool perspective to hear, re: the attitude in 90s vs now.
I'm curious as to the tone on the topic, though. Certainly it's dire, so that's not what surprises me. But why are we only talking about federal US politics as the make or break on this? Speaking as someone from the south, there are surprising alliances (Read: tea party and radical liberals) on issues ranging from protecting waterways to solar/wind power on state level. California continues to be a prime example of what a state can do, despite federal meddling and push back. State and local seem like quite fine ways of addressing energy and land use.
And, like I said, there's a whole globe of international players that don't have to deal with the same political environment re: climate change and plan to move forward on this with or without the US.
So... I donno. Seems like there are plenty of places to channel this energy and some cause for not complete despair?
I simply do not see the political or individual will to make adequate changes in time to make a substantive difference. There are many, many things that can be done to reduce emissions ranging from diet, to commute, to travel. However, even among those people I know who have reasonable knowledge of climate impacts, I don't see actual changes in behavior that are substantive. Try suggesting "less air travel" to a group of friends some time and see the glazed looks.
It is no secret that the current federal-level political structure is not encouraging on this topic.
I think a lot of people have their heads in the sand, and are either oblivious or hope that there will be a magic pill via technology/geoengineering/or some consumer product/app that will make it all better.
Washington has a carbon tax vote coming up that should pass.
Global warming will be one of those things that, in 20 years, you won't find anyone who admits to opposing it back in 2018.
Yeah, by then their position will evolve to "it's too late now to do anything".
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum. We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future. We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future. We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars. And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons. Even Pete does it. Oh, and have kids. More than two, in many cases.
And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet. We are all the problem. And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.
Recently Harwatt and a team of scientists from Oregon State University, Bard College, and Loma Linda University calculated just what would happen if every American made one dietary change: substituting beans for beef. They found that if everyone were willing and able to do that—hypothetically—the U.S. could still come close to meeting its 2020 greenhouse-gas emission goals, pledged by President Barack Obama in 2009.
A couple of people mentioned wind power but it turns out it isn’t so great for the environment! This article just came out:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-10-04/wind-power-isn-t-as-clean-as-we-thought-it-was
A couple of people mentioned wind power but it turns out it isn’t so great for the environment! This article just came out:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-10-04/wind-power-isn-t-as-clean-as-we-thought-it-was
A 0.24 C gain is a lot better than what we're looking at with coal plants.
Really, the problem is too many people. Even if we blanketed our roofs with solar panels, there won't be enough resources for panels for all 7.5B of us to live the life of an American or Aussie. We either need some serious birth control or a complete remake of our cities and society.
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum. We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future. We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future. We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars. And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons. Even Pete does it. Oh, and have kids. More than two, in many cases.
And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet. We are all the problem. And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.
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.Plenty of us want to discuss it, but those who do discuss it are also the ones who are far less likely to have more than 2 kids. There are significant social/religious institutions that encourage procreation and are, as a population, simultaneously more skeptical of the veracity of human influence on climate change. There are literally members of Congress who believe (or at least say they do) that God will solve climate change- if it is even a thing. If science is not a fundamental part of the decision process, it ends up being a dead end. Addressing overpopulation is a parallel example of people generally not taking ownership of the big picture in their own decisions.
But, nobody wants to discuss it.
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.
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.Plenty of us want to discuss it, but those who do discuss it are also the ones who are far less likely to have more than 2 kids. There are significant social/religious institutions that encourage procreation and are, as a population, simultaneously more skeptical of the veracity of human influence on climate change. There are literally members of Congress who believe (or at least say they do) that God will solve climate change- if it is even a thing. If science is not a fundamental part of the decision process, it ends up being a dead end. Addressing overpopulation is a parallel example of people generally not taking ownership of the big picture in their own decisions.
But, nobody wants to discuss it.
Look, the elephant in the room is this: the warming is baked in at this point. Eat vegan all you want, stop flying... it doesn't matter. There's already enough carbon in the atmosphere that big changes will happen. And your vegan not-flying lifestyle *still* isn't sustainable - *nobody* who lives in a modern society is living a sustainable lifestyle unless you're going full freegan/living in a tree.
So we're going to have to geoengineer our way out. Period. It's time to stop talking about driving less (I ride a bike everywhere, but for the climate it's probably a waste of time) and talk about making sure we can grow crops (anti-GMO people, you are welcome to starve) and maybe putting some extra sulfates in the upper atmosphere if things get really bad. And being realistic - we need a humming economy to develop better renewable energy tech. At this point we probably need to keep burning fossil fuels to get there.
We are going to have to live with elevated CO2 levels and their consequences for a while. That means we should be planning for that, not endlessly recycling the "let's tax carbon and all drive a Prius!" and "but the scientists aren't SURE, let's do more research also Al Gore argle bargle" BS spouted by both sides of the debate.
It's almost as if both liberals and conservatives *want* civilization to collapse, both through willful ignorance.
-W
Australia is doing nothing until a change of government. Our new environment minister just said about coal "To say it has to be phased out by 2050 is drawing a long bow."
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/environment-minister-says-calls-to-end-coal-drawing-long-bow/10354604?pfmredir=sm
This is why we need ex- mining compamy lawyers in charge of the environment.
Nope, no hope coming from down under. We are just gonna burn
Now we need to A) survive the changes, and B) make a plan to recover. Pushing people to go vegan and ride their bikes (I'm already onboard) is great. It's also pointless. Time to admit that.
You, friend, are the true optimist in this thread.
Oh, a mere multi-millionaire could do the sulfates on their own. I'd be surprised if an Elon Musk type doesn't already have everything in place. And obviously even a tiny nation-state could do it. Now, there might be terrible consequences we haven't anticipated... c'est la vie.
I'm not saying we *should* rely on gee-whiz tech to save us... I'm saying *we already made that decision*. It's our only remaining option. The ship sailed on emissions reductions at least 20 years ago and maybe more like 50.
Now we need to A) survive the changes, and B) make a plan to recover. Pushing people to go vegan and ride their bikes (I'm already onboard) is great. It's also pointless. Time to admit that.
-W
You, friend, are the true optimist in this thread.
To be clear, I expect loads of deaths. My hope is that "civilization" and human knowledge can survive 1/2 of humans dying and we can be smarter going forward. We'll see.
-W
Also, go traveling to see reefs and stuff now.
One of the things that depresses me is the behaviour of people on this forum. We are supposed to be logical, and rational, and think about the future. We maximise earnings, arrange tax efficient savings, plan our finances decades into the future. We even somewhat limit commute times, sometimes, and some of us (not very many, it seems) even drive slightly more fuel-efficient cars. And then some of us, possibly most of us, fly all over the fucking planet at the drop of a hat for entirely selfish reasons. Even Pete does it. Oh, and have kids. More than two, in many cases.
And then there are threads like this wailing about the state of the planet. We are all the problem. And that problem is going to come home to all of us who haven't died of old age by about 2050.
Look, the elephant in the room is this: the warming is baked in at this point. Eat vegan all you want, stop flying... it doesn't matter. There's already enough carbon in the atmosphere that big changes will happen. And your vegan not-flying lifestyle *still* isn't sustainable - *nobody* who lives in a modern society is living a sustainable lifestyle unless you're going full freegan/living in a tree.
So we're going to have to geoengineer our way out. Period. It's time to stop talking about driving less (I ride a bike everywhere, but for the climate it's probably a waste of time) and talk about making sure we can grow crops (anti-GMO people, you are welcome to starve) and maybe putting some extra sulfates in the upper atmosphere if things get really bad. And being realistic - we need a humming economy to develop better renewable energy tech. At this point we probably need to keep burning fossil fuels to get there.
We are going to have to live with elevated CO2 levels and their consequences for a while. That means we should be planning for that, not endlessly recycling the "let's tax carbon and all drive a Prius!" and "but the scientists aren't SURE, let's do more research also Al Gore argle bargle" BS spouted by both sides of the debate.
It's almost as if both liberals and conservatives *want* civilization to collapse, both through willful ignorance.
-W
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Ok, how do we get to 1b people in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change?
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Ok, how do we get to 1b people in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change?
Did I mention the horse is out of the barn? Oh yeah, I did.
@bacchi Destroying local ecosystems contributes to climate change and absolute population growth is still a problem. I don't think climate change is being viewed as an issue only solved with reduction of direct emissions. Regardless, I do agree that coming to a more sustainable lifestyle is key for everyone in the world.
I found the article (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) written on why a prominent environmentalist refuses to talk about overpopulation, it's a good read.
If your concern is the creation of new consumers and emitters, your gaze should be drawn to those who will consume and emit the most, i.e., the wealthy.
Also, I believe China is already the largest emitter of carbon, but I think just recently committed to drastically reducing coal (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2018/07/09/china-is-swallowing-a-bitter-pill-and-trying-to-cut-its-coal-use/#7c60e8305e4f) in favor of clean energy out of necessity.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Ok, how do we get to 1b people in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change?
Did I mention the horse is out of the barn? Oh yeah, I did.
So when you say no one wants to talk about the real issue of overpopulation, what do you mean? It seems like a number of people have tried to engage on the topic but you don't actually want to talk about it.
I'm not sure cutting back on animal products will help. What will help is the way animals are raised - stop CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations, i.e. feedlots). And the way crops are raised. Right now field crops (think corn, wheat, soybeans) are basically mining the soil. There are areas where 6-10" of topsoil have been lost, and that topsoil was full of carbon. Plowing puts air deeper in the soil and increases oxidation, which releases carbon and methane into the air. Intensive field crops also destroy masses of wildlife, and the trend to bigger fields has intensified that loss. Bigger fields also mean more use of insecticides, since beneficial insects (i.e insects that eat insect pests) lose habitat.
A shift to intensive grazing grass-fed beef (mob grazing, which actually increases soil carbon) and pastured pigs and poultry, less mono-culture of annuals and more poly-culture of perennials, would all go a long way to diminish the effects of contemporary agriculture. Mob grazing mimics what happened with the bison, and happens with the big herds in Africa - plant material gets trampled into the ground and becomes humus, which is sequestered carbon. Good rotational grazing also messes up parasite life cycles, which means a lot less de-worming (and a lot of livestock parasites have developed immunity to a lot of de-wormers). Grain-fed cattle also have a more acidic rumen, produce more methane, and the combination of that with antibiotics in feed leads to E. coli from them that are more dangerous for us, since the newer E. coli strains are acid resistant (our stomach acidity protects us from a lot of pathogens).
This may make food more expensive, but food prices are abnormally low (especially in the US). Basically the push for low food prices has driven farmers to exploit their resources instead of husbanding them.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
If the world used resources at the rate of an average American, the world would have no resources in 18 months. This has nothing to do with the average American resource use. This has to do with too many people. We would have to live at a level that most people in America would find unacceptable at the current level of population.
China is the largest emitter of carbon but not per capita. That's a tie between the US and Australia.
China is the largest emitter of carbon but not per capita. That's a tie between the US and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita - not quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions the whole EU produces 2/3 that of America. Getting the US, Canada, and Australia to EU levels per person would be wonderful...
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
If the world used resources at the rate of an average American, the world would have no resources in 18 months. This has nothing to do with the average American resource use. This has to do with too many people. We would have to live at a level that most people in America would find unacceptable at the current level of population.
There are different ways to look at the data.
If people want to be as wasteful as they currently are in the US, then yes. We will need to start executing people to survive.
If people want to conserve much more than they currently are, then yes. We can survive just fine with what currently exists.
The best solution for the most people probably lies somewhere in the middle.
To say that the problem only has to do with too many people and has nothing to do with resource use is objectively wrong though.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
If the world used resources at the rate of an average American, the world would have no resources in 18 months. This has nothing to do with the average American resource use. This has to do with too many people. We would have to live at a level that most people in America would find unacceptable at the current level of population.
There are different ways to look at the data.
If people want to be as wasteful as they currently are in the US, then yes. We will need to start executing people to survive.
If people want to conserve much more than they currently are, then yes. We can survive just fine with what currently exists.
The best solution for the most people probably lies somewhere in the middle.
To say that the problem only has to do with too many people and has nothing to do with resource use is objectively wrong though.
I guess I wasn't clear. What I'm saying is that you can address and implement conservation but it still isn't enough to pull us back from the ledge. The article mentioned above about "Why I never talk about population" has some good ideas on how to at least start a discussion.
https://vasweb.com/Philippines%202010/Introducton.htm
This is the type of things where investment is needed.
China is the largest emitter of carbon but not per capita. That's a tie between the US and Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita - not quite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions the whole EU produces 2/3 that of America. Getting the US, Canada, and Australia to EU levels per person would be wonderful...
My mistake. There are other countries that are much worse per capita than the US and AU.
Re: the EU, having sensible mass transit and housing size helps a lot. Plus having a government care more about the people instead of corporations.
@Cache_Stash What do you mean when you say "it's not enough to pull us back from the ledge"? You mean to a sustainable world population in general or specifically re: climate emissions?If you truly feel that the earth is warming at the rate the IPCC says it is (although all of the models have thus far been wrong), then yes, it's too late. If you are talking about general resources of the world, then yes it is too late. Unless we have a pandemic or some other disastrous population event, our environment cannot sustain the number of people we have in the world. A small number of people trying their best isn't going to be good enough. And when I'm saying "small" I'm saying like maybe 350 Million people like the size of the US.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
^This
The issue isn't overpopulation, but consumption habits. By changing our consumption habits one could reasonably argue we are not overpopulated. But at our current 1st world consumption rates, we are. You can't just kill off billions of people. But we can work on changing our consumption habits. Perhaps the reason why it isn't discussed as much as you would like is because the only reasonable humane solution is what is always discussed, consumption habits.
I'm not sure cutting back on animal products will help. What will help is the way animals are raised - stop CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations, i.e. feedlots). And the way crops are raised. Right now field crops (think corn, wheat, soybeans) are basically mining the soil. There are areas where 6-10" of topsoil have been lost, and that topsoil was full of carbon. Plowing puts air deeper in the soil and increases oxidation, which releases carbon and methane into the air. Intensive field crops also destroy masses of wildlife, and the trend to bigger fields has intensified that loss. Bigger fields also mean more use of insecticides, since beneficial insects (i.e insects that eat insect pests) lose habitat.
A shift to intensive grazing grass-fed beef (mob grazing, which actually increases soil carbon) and pastured pigs and poultry, less mono-culture of annuals and more poly-culture of perennials, would all go a long way to diminish the effects of contemporary agriculture. Mob grazing mimics what happened with the bison, and happens with the big herds in Africa - plant material gets trampled into the ground and becomes humus, which is sequestered carbon. Good rotational grazing also messes up parasite life cycles, which means a lot less de-worming (and a lot of livestock parasites have developed immunity to a lot of de-wormers). Grain-fed cattle also have a more acidic rumen, produce more methane, and the combination of that with antibiotics in feed leads to E. coli from them that are more dangerous for us, since the newer E. coli strains are acid resistant (our stomach acidity protects us from a lot of pathogens).
This may make food more expensive, but food prices are abnormally low (especially in the US). Basically the push for low food prices has driven farmers to exploit their resources instead of husbanding them.
So much this. I've seen any number of posts and blogs about people who were vegetarians but began working in sustainable farms, or started a homestead, or whatever, and realized that they couldn't do it and still be vegetarians/vegans. "There's a reason our image of a farm is a polyculture with many different animals." (I believe that was Sharon Astyk? A farmer and eco-advocate, among other things.) Animals do a lot around the farm that has now been replaced with fertilizers, insecticides, and gas-powered equipment. Oil is the only reason we can have monoculture farming.
I don't actually want to discourage anyone from becoming vegan. Do it, it's not going to hurt anything. If nothing else, I think many people could easily reduce their intake of meat. I don't think meat is unhealthy at all--but we raise unhealthy animals and, surprise! they're not super healthy for us to eat. Having a cow that's sick and half-dead when it gets to slaughter because it's been force fed grains rather than grass...it should be obvious that that's not the ticket to good health. So eat less, support better practices and farms/farmers when you do buy meat, eggs, and dairy.
A lot of people focus on meat as being the horrible part of agriculture because it's easy. But giant fields of nothing but corn and soy are terrible for the environment too. Monocultures in general are awful. I've done a lot of reading and research into farming practices and the issues surrounding farms. It's not an issue of meat vs. grains, it's that the entire system is so ridiculously stupid from start to finish. No, GMOs won't save us all from starvation. They have massive problems of their own, like built in genes so that you can't save seeds from them. In a world of climate change, when you can't rely on global systems anymore, how do you expect to get seeds?
Start gardening. Grow what food you can, because if nothing else those skills are going to be in high demand in a future world where people are starving to death.
And maybe don't eat fish, since not only is much of it laden with mercury but our oceans are, if possible, more fucked over than the land, and they're just as crucial to human survival. Plus, something like 40% of the plastic in the oceans is related to fishing. If you care about ocean cleanup, don't eat fish.
@Cache_Stash What do you mean when you say "it's not enough to pull us back from the ledge"? You mean to a sustainable world population in general or specifically re: climate emissions?If you truly feel that the earth is warming at the rate the IPCC says it is (although all of the models have thus far been wrong), then yes, it's too late. If you are talking about general resources of the world, then yes it is too late.
https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air. The contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere would be self correcting with a properly sized population.
My point about no one wants to talk about the population problem: We're so engaged with the climate conversation there is no room for conversation on the larger problem which created our contribution to a negative climate change (the size of the world's population). We're already have about 6 Billion too many people.
Conservation would allow more people, but the standard of living will be much, much lower than that currently enjoyed by the typical American.
Given the amount of world travel and its growth, I think the problem may self correct with a pandemic that reduces the size of the population without our help. Every population of every species on the earth goes through periods where the population naturally crashes due to imbalances. A great deal of the crashes are due to disease. I think the earth will take care of the problem all by itself. In my estimation, it is probably the only way to correct our negative impact on the environment. The horse is out of the barn.
Here's the disconnect, you're arguing we have too many people based on the American "standard of living". I assume based on this that you don't believe the assertions made by JoshuaSpodek above?
And even if you don't, that's circular logic. We argue residents of the developed world should use less resources. You say we have too many people because we can't support that many using the resources that the average American uses. But again, the average American is using WAY too much.
^This
The issue isn't overpopulation, but consumption habits. By changing our consumption habits one could reasonably argue we are not overpopulated. But at our current 1st world consumption rates, we are. You can't just kill off billions of people. But we can work on changing our consumption habits. Perhaps the reason why it isn't discussed as much as you would like is because the only reasonable humane solution is what is always discussed, consumption habits.
And if you read my follow up to the post above by Dabnasty, I noted that consumption habits isn't enough. We already have too many people.
Ermm. Gonna disagree massively here. Bat calling @Malaysia41 as she'll for sure have more and better argumentation than me and a more extensive collection of scientific information to back it up. But let me start with some basics:
First, I agree with you that the whole world going vegan is not going to work. Or actually it probably would, but I do agree that there's lots of land areas that aren't suitable to grow crops while they're perfectly fine for grazing and such. I also agree that monocultures aren't great and that a mix of different crops and a handful of animals might work best. But that's pretty far from what we're at now, so lets have a look at some data.
The crops you guys are mentioning (corn and soy) are mostly produced for animal food. 70% of all soy produced in the USA is used for animal feed (https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf). For corn, this percentage is at 36% (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/). Apparently, worldwide, 55% of crops are used for human consumption and a whopping 36% as animal feed (https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed). Now, using that logic one might realize that the current numbers of farm animals are not sustainable as they apparently take up 36% of calories from all the foods we are growing (in monocultures)! Wouldn't it be way easier and result in way more variety in crops if we heavily reduce our animal consumption to levels where we don't need such an insane amount of crops just to feed our animals and have a meager 12%-3% (chicken vs beef) of the original calories left? I'm not sure what level of animal protein consumption would be sustainable, but for now the easiest for me seems to cut out all/most beef/pork/cheese as they are the worst environmental wise (and seemingly also health wise).
Regarding health; it's generally accepted that processed meat consumption (mostly red meat) is one of the main risk factors for colon cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991099/). After lung cancer and smoking, it is the strongest association found in cancer research (I don't have a source readily available for this number, but it was in a uni lecture I've had and it just stuck with me as I'd been taught meat was part of a healthy diet my whole life. A stronger risk factor might've been found by now, but the fact that it was a strong one is still standing).
@Cache_StashYes, the education and rights of women are the major input to the population side. Want to reduce fertility in developing areas? Teach young girls how to read, let them advance through secondary and tertiary schooling, have a career, vote, drive, own property, have equal say in family planning matters, and then see if they have fewer kids compared to the version of themselves in a rural hut where more children = more help in the fields.
Both your links pasted above state that the appropriate measures to deal with climate change are a combination of reducing fertility rates (by empowering women) and by curbing emissions.
There are many organisations working to lift women out of poverty in the developing world and enable them to limit their family size. I hear that in the US there are issues around access to birth control but groups are working on that.
So... Population and birth rates are very much being considered and are definitely being worked on in a humane way.
Slaughtering 6 out of 7 people or allowing them to succumb to disease. I don't see that as a workable solution, mate.
@Cache_Stash What do you mean when you say "it's not enough to pull us back from the ledge"? You mean to a sustainable world population in general or specifically re: climate emissions?If you truly feel that the earth is warming at the rate the IPCC says it is (although all of the models have thus far been wrong), then yes, it's too late. If you are talking about general resources of the world, then yes it is too late. Unless we have a pandemic or some other disastrous population event, our environment cannot sustain the number of people we have in the world. A small number of people trying their best isn't going to be good enough. And when I'm saying "small" I'm saying like maybe 350 Million people like the size of the US.
Ermm. Gonna disagree massively here. Bat calling @Malaysia41 as she'll for sure have more and better argumentation than me and a more extensive collection of scientific information to back it up. But let me start with some basics:
First, I agree with you that the whole world going vegan is not going to work. Or actually it probably would, but I do agree that there's lots of land areas that aren't suitable to grow crops while they're perfectly fine for grazing and such. I also agree that monocultures aren't great and that a mix of different crops and a handful of animals might work best. But that's pretty far from what we're at now, so lets have a look at some data.
The crops you guys are mentioning (corn and soy) are mostly produced for animal food. 70% of all soy produced in the USA is used for animal feed (https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf). For corn, this percentage is at 36% (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/). Apparently, worldwide, 55% of crops are used for human consumption and a whopping 36% as animal feed (https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed). Now, using that logic one might realize that the current numbers of farm animals are not sustainable as they apparently take up 36% of calories from all the foods we are growing (in monocultures)! Wouldn't it be way easier and result in way more variety in crops if we heavily reduce our animal consumption to levels where we don't need such an insane amount of crops just to feed our animals and have a meager 12%-3% (chicken vs beef) of the original calories left? I'm not sure what level of animal protein consumption would be sustainable, but for now the easiest for me seems to cut out all/most beef/pork/cheese as they are the worst environmental wise (and seemingly also health wise).
Regarding health; it's generally accepted that processed meat consumption (mostly red meat) is one of the main risk factors for colon cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991099/). After lung cancer and smoking, it is the strongest association found in cancer research (I don't have a source readily available for this number, but it was in a uni lecture I've had and it just stuck with me as I'd been taught meat was part of a healthy diet my whole life. A stronger risk factor might've been found by now, but the fact that it was a strong one is still standing).
You're still arguing this as if it's a given we will continue with CAFO style farming. I'm saying we need to scrap that system entirely, thus removing the grains from the diets of most animals (apparently chickens do need some unless they're 100% foragers, and even then a little winter supplementation is nice) so that all those grains are no longer being grown merely to be fed to animals. We could return the grasslands of the midwest to...wait for it...grasslands. With herd animals on them and all the bugs, mammals, and birds that are supposed to be there. Sequestering carbon and building up the soil again that we've recklessly destroyed (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/10/09/some-plants-nurture-soil-bacteria-that-keep-them-healthy).
FWIW, I do limit my beef/pork/dairy. I was entirely beef and pork free for over a decade until I combined lives with my spouse. Now I eat a little bit, and he eats far less than he would if I wasn't in the picture, and he's come more to my side of things than I've gone to his. I'm working on cutting our chicken consumption in half, by simply adding less meat to meals and cutting it up smaller so it still seems like as much. I don't disagree that eating less meat is a great thing, and even eating no meat if that's your choice. But making it a black and white choice between veganism and horrible conventional agriculture is a false dichotomy. There's another route, one that works very well if taken along with moderation.
And the way crops are raised. Right now field crops (think corn, wheat, soybeans) are basically mining the soil. There are areas where 6-10" of topsoil have been lost, and that topsoil was full of carbon. Plowing puts air deeper in the soil and increases oxidation, which releases carbon and methane into the air. Intensive field crops also destroy masses of wildlife, and the trend to bigger fields has intensified that loss. Bigger fields also mean more use of insecticides, since beneficial insects (i.e insects that eat insect pests) lose habitat.
Using a biophysical simulation model we calculated human carrying capacity under ten diet scenarios. The scenarios included two reference diets based on actual consumption and eight “Healthy Diet” scenarios that complied with nutritional recommendations but varied in the level of meat content. We considered the U.S. agricultural land base and accounted for losses, processing conversions, livestock feed needs, suitability of land for crops or grazing, and land productivity. Annual per capita land requirements ranged from 0.13 to 1.08 ha person-1 year-1 across the ten diet scenarios. Carrying capacity varied from 402 to 807 million persons; 1.3 to 2.6 times the 2010 U.S. population. Carrying capacity was generally higher for scenarios with less meat and highest for the lacto-vegetarian diet. However, the carrying capacity of the vegan diet was lower than two of the healthy omnivore diet scenarios. Sensitivity analysis showed that carrying capacity estimates were highly influenced by starting assumptions about the proportion of cropland available for cultivated cropping. Population level dietary change can contribute substantially to meeting future food needs, though ongoing agricultural research and sustainable management practices are still needed to assure sufficient production levels.
I really like the drawdown project. I think it's hugely multidisciplinary and rigorous. I'm still finishing the book, though!
Here's a really cool graph that summarizes some ways to reduce greenhouse gases:
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5bb50ee098a180364d095e94-960-1182.png)
Source (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-prevent-climate-change-natural-disasters-pollution-2018-10)
I really like the drawdown project. I think it's hugely multidisciplinary and rigorous. I'm still finishing the book, though!
Here's a really cool graph that summarizes some ways to reduce greenhouse gases:
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5bb50ee098a180364d095e94-960-1182.png)
Source (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-prevent-climate-change-natural-disasters-pollution-2018-10)
oh man, regarding farmed salmon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYYf8cLUV5E
Norway!?!? e tu?
@Cache_Stash
Both your links pasted above state that the appropriate measures to deal with climate change are a combination of reducing fertility rates (by empowering women) and by curbing emissions.
There are many organisations working to lift women out of poverty in the developing world and enable them to limit their family size. I hear that in the US there are issues around access to birth control but groups are working on that.
So... Population and birth rates are very much being considered and are definitely being worked on in a humane way.
Slaughtering 6 out of 7 people or allowing them to succumb to disease. I don't see that as a workable solution, mate.
@Cache_StashYes, the education and rights of women are the major input to the population side. Want to reduce fertility in developing areas? Teach young girls how to read, let them advance through secondary and tertiary schooling, have a career, vote, drive, own property, have equal say in family planning matters, and then see if they have fewer kids compared to the version of themselves in a rural hut where more children = more help in the fields.
Both your links pasted above state that the appropriate measures to deal with climate change are a combination of reducing fertility rates (by empowering women) and by curbing emissions.
There are many organisations working to lift women out of poverty in the developing world and enable them to limit their family size. I hear that in the US there are issues around access to birth control but groups are working on that.
So... Population and birth rates are very much being considered and are definitely being worked on in a humane way.
Slaughtering 6 out of 7 people or allowing them to succumb to disease. I don't see that as a workable solution, mate.
Also, related: clean water/sanitation contribute to lower fertility by generally being a prerequisite. So if an area has illiterate women AND no clean water, start with the clean water first. Harder for someone to naturally want to have only 0, 1, or 2 children if the U5 mortality rate is 50% (~historical rate up until ~early 20th century in "developed" countries) regardless of their education and rights.
@Cache_Stash What do you mean when you say "it's not enough to pull us back from the ledge"? You mean to a sustainable world population in general or specifically re: climate emissions?If you truly feel that the earth is warming at the rate the IPCC says it is (although all of the models have thus far been wrong), then yes, it's too late. If you are talking about general resources of the world, then yes it is too late.
Thanks for clarification. What are you basing those opinions on?
oh man, regarding farmed salmon....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYYf8cLUV5E
Norway!?!? e tu?
From what I've seen, when done properly permaculture can produce more on a small plot of land than conventional ag. Especially when you consider that it doesn't really need outside inputs, they're highly productive.
Then there's all the wasted space in places like orchards, currently. Why do we not have chickens and turkeys roaming apple orchards? Excellent pest control and also a secondary product for the farmers. Why do we not have more space in cities for people to garden and even do small-scale animal husbandry for things like chickens? We allocate so much freaking public space for goddamn cars yet we can't be bothered to let people grow healthy food? Can you imagine how neighborhoods would change if, instead of parking spaces for everyone, we had public garden spaces for everyone?
As I said, the whole system is just stupid. We've got the knowledge to do better, to grow more with less, and we just. don't. Because the current system is making a few people very wealthy, and there are ag subsidies to keep the status quo just as it is. Freaking yay.
From what I've seen, when done properly permaculture can produce more on a small plot of land than conventional ag. Especially when you consider that it doesn't really need outside inputs, they're highly productive.
Then there's all the wasted space in places like orchards, currently. Why do we not have chickens and turkeys roaming apple orchards? Excellent pest control and also a secondary product for the farmers. Why do we not have more space in cities for people to garden and even do small-scale animal husbandry for things like chickens? We allocate so much freaking public space for goddamn cars yet we can't be bothered to let people grow healthy food? Can you imagine how neighborhoods would change if, instead of parking spaces for everyone, we had public garden spaces for everyone?
As I said, the whole system is just stupid. We've got the knowledge to do better, to grow more with less, and we just. don't. Because the current system is making a few people very wealthy, and there are ag subsidies to keep the status quo just as it is. Freaking yay.
So I'd actually agree with you that with more intensive methods of farming (like permaculture) you can get more food per acre than current production methods employed in the USA. However, the reason we've adopted somewhat less productive methods of agriculture (which still produce vastly more food per acre than people imagined possible during the 1960s) is that in North America agriculture is relatively less constrained by the availability/cost of arable land, and relatively more constrained by the availability/cost of human labor to work on farms and produce food. As a result, North American agriculture is only middle of the road in terms of productivity per acre (well behind "developed NE Asia" <-- read Japan and Korea), but has the absolutely highest productivity per agricultural worker.
(http://www.choicesmagazine.org/UserFiles/file/Article1_Figure2_v3.jpg)
An orchard with turkeys roaming around may well produce more food per acre per year than an orchard without turkeys, but is also going to require hiring significantly more turkey wranglers, which is very hard for farmers to do in most parts of the country.
Now as yields decrease as the climate changes, and food prices start to creep up, you may indeed see a shift towards higher land efficiency lower labor efficiency methods of farming in the USA. That's not something I'd celebrate. I've spent enough time working in farm fields to last me for the rest of my life. And from my experience working with others, it usually takes somewhere between one week and two months of working from sunrise to sunset, often in 100 degree heat, for most people to feel they've had enough of highly labor intensive agriculture to last themselves a lifetime.
TL;DR I agree yields in the US/Canada could be higher with other farming practices, but I think the reasons we don't see those practices today has little to do with a conspiracy of people profiting from the current system, and a lot to do with economic trade offs and the current prices for food, land, and human labor in our part of the world.
Now you're assuming that we should be keeping our food prices as artificially low as they currently are. I disagree with that premise. I don't think we should have ag subsidies any more than we should have subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
Yet here we are, spending 12 billion dollars extra on buying ag products that won't be sold to China because of the tariffs President Blowhard instituted. #winning #fiscalresponsibility #freemarket!
Now you're assuming that we should be keeping our food prices as artificially low as they currently are. I disagree with that premise. I don't think we should have ag subsidies any more than we should have subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
Yet here we are, spending 12 billion dollars extra on buying ag products that won't be sold to China because of the tariffs President Blowhard instituted. #winning #fiscalresponsibility #freemarket!
No, I'm not.
Farm subsidies have the effect of increasing the potential profitability of farming without increasing the price consumers pay for food at the grocery store (or alternatively decreasing the cost of food at the grocery story without decreasing farmer profitability).
Removing agricultural subsidies would indeed increase the prices paid for food by consumers. Since removing subsidies doesn't mean the farmers see any more money per bushel of apples or pound of turkey I don't see how it would make it more economically viable for a farmer to invest in more labor intensive agricultural practices.
To make more labor intensive (but more productive per acre) agricultural practices economically viable, you'd either need to drive up food prices paid by consumers while keeping farm subsidies in place, or remove farm subsidies and drive up food prices even further beyond the effect of eliminating the subsidies.*
*Or, for the sake of completeness, I suppose you could keep prices paid by consumers constant while driving down the cost of human labor, but that (like making food more expensive in a world with many people who are still food insecure) is undesirable for a lot of reasons.
If we didn't subsidize farmers, wouldn't the poor be hurt by the higher prices more than those better off? I think so. I think subsidies make sense to help out those that have a hard time making ends meet.
Re American farm subsidies, read Joel Salatin - his take is the subsidies help the big get bigger and hurt the small family farm.
Also marketing boards, rules, etc., are all geared to large producers and create almost insurmountable hurdles for small producers.
I'm not a farmer and not an American, so don't know just how accurate he is, but he is definitely a small family farmer.
Why not just make a revenue neutral tax on carbon-intensive fertilizers and use that to subsidize smart practices?
That's a very interesting graph indeed @Meowkins.
Thanks M41 for chiming in and adding some more plant vs. meat-based diet data. SisX and Retiredat63; you are right that I did not say that your idea of agriculture was impossible. However, I'm not sure how sustainable that model would be at 7+ billion people. As far as I'm aware of most permacultures deliver way less caloric value on a same area so it would require lots of land. Totally possible in many not so populated areas, but I wonder how it would work for densely populated areas. I'd love to see some data/studies on this model though, so if you could show me some I'll have a look (no time to do any searches). I also think the transition to such a model will take some time though, so cutting meat consumption now is in my opinion still the better solution. The amounts of meat we eat in the west are just too much - if we'd all cut in half a model like you proposed would IMO also be much easier to set up and sustain. However, as I said I don't have numbers on this so I might just need to dig deeper!
Re health and red/processed meats. I agree that lots of nutrition science is just hard to perform and/or poorly performed, however the processed meat and cancer link is pretty obvious. Actually the Dutch Nutritional Center recently reduced the amount of meat they recommend in the diet due to the "strong scientific evidence" for there being a connection between processed/red meats and colon cancer. These folks are usually suuuuper slow and reserved with changing their recommendations + the farmers lobby is pretty damn strong so that they've changed this was huge news.
The links I provided yesterday were just a quick google search as it was late (hence I called over M41) but there's plenty of data out there.
@sixwings interesting that you mention lab grown meat. I'm very interested in the technological developments behind it, but I honestly wonder what problem it will solve. We already eat plenty of meat for nutritional value (rather too much) and too my knowledge lab meat still takes a lot of energy to grow (more than just crops - but please correct me if I'm wrong!). Beyond that, if people are already scared af about GMOs I wonder how willing they will be to adopt this.. The only actual problem that lab grown meat would solve here is that it would allow us to NOT cut our consumption but using less land/animals for the production of meat.
While I welcome and appreciate people’s desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I haven’t participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu
While I welcome and appreciate people’s desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I haven’t participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there's a case for the government to do something. There's always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there's always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There's no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That's my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there's more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what's the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.
Now you're assuming that we should be keeping our food prices as artificially low as they currently are. I disagree with that premise. I don't think we should have ag subsidies any more than we should have subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
Yet here we are, spending 12 billion dollars extra on buying ag products that won't be sold to China because of the tariffs President Blowhard instituted. #winning #fiscalresponsibility #freemarket!
While I welcome and appreciate people’s desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I haven’t participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu
Those top 100 polluting companies don't pollute in a vacuum. They create products because we use them and they pollute because no one cares. Until we get Democrats in power who actually are bold enough to create regulations, we're stuck with doing what we can do, which is to be wise and active consumers.
In other words, if you must buy a car, buy an electric car. If you buy a rug, buy one made out of recycled plastic. If you want straws out of our lives, ask the server to not give you a straw.
When enough people decide to Do The Right Thing, then things can change. Like in Washington state, with any luck, in
While I welcome and appreciate people’s desire to talk about the best ways to combat climate change and what lifestyle changes have the most impact, I haven’t participated in this thread because I think the biggest issue is that the subject has been diverted from the real issue, largely by corporate interests in the neoliberal water we all swim in. This article, which I just ran across, sums up the issue better than I could have said it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals?CMP=fb_gu
Those top 100 polluting companies don't pollute in a vacuum. They create products because we use them and they pollute because no one cares. Until we get Democrats in power who actually are bold enough to create regulations, we're stuck with doing what we can do, which is to be wise and active consumers.
In other words, if you must buy a car, buy an electric car. If you buy a rug, buy one made out of recycled plastic. If you want straws out of our lives, ask the server to not give you a straw.
When enough people decide to Do The Right Thing, then things can change. Like in Washington state, with any luck, in
I clicked through to the 100 companies and it seems they are all oil / coal / resource miners. So I agree, if we reduce our demand, we can reduce their impact.
Going back to the first article, I'm not sure tho what I'm being advised to do, except vote left. I don't think Corbyn will ever get in tho, he's not got the personality. Labour have a real chance here in AUS but they aren't very left wing anymore :). So what else?
I do enjoy an article that blames everything on Thatcher, so thanks for sharing, Kris :)
So what do we do?
So what do we do?
We force the Big Conversations on our political candidates, companies, and governments. Not the should we have plastic straws conversations. Obciously, this has to come from the left, because it will never come from the right or the libertarians.
So what do we do?
We force the Big Conversations on our political candidates, companies, and governments. Not the should we have plastic straws conversations. Obciously, this has to come from the left, because it will never come from the right or the libertarians.
In a world where even leftists don't want to get rid of their SUVs and large houses and flying across an ocean, how is that going to be managed? There's simply no will to have Big Conversations.
Sure, there's a lot of lip service but there are only token changes from most people. Recycling is easy because we can still consume as long as we recycle the cardboard and plastic shells! Large houses are ok because we can throw up a shitton of solar panels! Stop flying, well, that's just too much to ask.
I oscillate between despondency and hope.
Okay, I believe that the liberal party is as capitalist and greedy as the right, but fail to see what the end game here is in making it about neoliberals and their framing of individual action.
I guess I just disagree with the article. I think that it all exists as "Yes, and"s.
We should reduce our consumption and live more ecofriendly lifestyles.
Yes, and we should pressure corporations into environmentally friendly practices and products.
Yes, and we should lobby our government to create legislation that protects the earth.
Like, all three have to happen and be moving forward in parallel. Representative gov't that is shaped by an eco-conscious society that bridles corporations. What is the other option? That we just rail against corporations and capitalism and get pissed at corporations for not caring about the future? Or asking our government to impose regulations on corporations on behalf of a citizenry that can't get enough of consuming endlessly? For sure, a government that imposed regulations on corporations *or* the average person without getting that representative buy in would be doomed to fail.
I honestly think that the action taken to address climate change is going to have to address the issue of unbridled capitalism and consumerism necessarily. To politicize climate change and make it an armchair discussion about capitalism and neoliberals is even more is a distraction.
Okay, I believe that the liberal party is as capitalist and greedy as the right, but fail to see what the end game here is in making it about neoliberals and their framing of individual action.
I guess I just disagree with the article. I think that it all exists as "Yes, and"s.
We should reduce our consumption and live more ecofriendly lifestyles.
Yes, and we should pressure corporations into environmentally friendly practices and products.
Yes, and we should lobby our government to create legislation that protects the earth.
Like, all three have to happen and be moving forward in parallel. Representative gov't that is shaped by an eco-conscious society that bridles corporations. What is the other option? That we just rail against corporations and capitalism and get pissed at corporations for not caring about the future? Or asking our government to impose regulations on corporations on behalf of a citizenry that can't get enough of consuming endlessly? For sure, a government that imposed regulations on corporations *or* the average person without getting that representative buy in would be doomed to fail.
I honestly think that the action taken to address climate change is going to have to address the issue of unbridled capitalism and consumerism necessarily. To politicize climate change and make it an armchair discussion about capitalism and neoliberals is even more is a distraction.
Then the big question, as Mustachian people, is how to use our money (clout) to make the biggest impact? Is there any way to invest my money that actually makes a statement? We're a large group with, collectively, a lot of money. If we could all move our money into a fund that supports socio-climatic progress, that would be a rather big thing.
As it is, I'm getting a little upset that I'm saving money and I have it invested in companies that are destroying the planet I and my children live on. WTF? I can stop buying shit, and I have, but the fact that my money is still invested with these destructive corporations is what they hear the loudest. So what do I do with my money? Do I abandon the idea of FIRE and give it all away to charities that are working on these problems? Can FIRE even exist soon? It's based on capitalism, and according to the IPCC report and this one to the UN, capitalism is essentially doomed (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/capitalism-un-scientists-preparing-end-fossil-fuels-warning-demise-a8523856.html) unless it seriously changes everything about itself (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse). How do I reconcile that I am a huge part of the problem by propping up the current system, and how do I take myself out of that without tanking some possible futures? (Because, of course, things could be less dire than reported. The system could, in fact, change with enough will to do so. Etc. The reason I'm not currently giving away all my money is because, duh, if things continue on as they are then having money will be more helpful than not having money.*)
*If it was me alone to worry about, I probably would give away most of my money and just keep around a modest e-fund. But I have kids to think about, and since I have kids it's my job to protect them, care for them, and do my best to ensure they have a future. That's worth fighting for. Hence all my angst on this topic.
@RetiredAt63 - As usual you and I are thinking along similar lines. I discovered that I have wild filberts (hazelnuts) just starting to grow on my property. I'm going to move them to a better area, but I'm pleased as punch to have some free food plants to add to my "stash". :) Two apple trees, a cherry tree, an indoor/outdoor lemon tree, 6 blueberry bushes...next year most likely two peach trees. :) And I'm wondering if we have anywhere we could put grapes?
@RetiredAt63 - As usual you and I are thinking along similar lines. I discovered that I have wild filberts (hazelnuts) just starting to grow on my property. I'm going to move them to a better area, but I'm pleased as punch to have some free food plants to add to my "stash". :) Two apple trees, a cherry tree, an indoor/outdoor lemon tree, 6 blueberry bushes...next year most likely two peach trees. :) And I'm wondering if we have anywhere we could put grapes?
I just harvested my sweet potatoes*, not enough to get me much past Christmas. I need to give them a long raised row, instead of crowding them in a raised bed. Carole Deppe has a point, squash are similar in taste and nutrition and a lot easier to harvest! I may try drying a few, sweet potato air-dried chips, yum.
*I'm Canadian, sweet potatoes are a vegetable, the idea of a casserole or pie made with them is a bit odd, but I read about them for American Thanksgiving.
This is the managed fund I was talking about. If you read this article it explains how they pick their ethical investments, which happily also follows on to being good economic investments. These guys actually travel to inspect conditions at factories etc.
https://www.afr.com/markets/how-to-make-money-the-sustainable-way-20180607-h113ks
Hopefully there's something similar in the US & Canada?
Disclaimer: I know one of the guys in the article.
This is the managed fund I was talking about. If you read this article it explains how they pick their ethical investments, which happily also follows on to being good economic investments. These guys actually travel to inspect conditions at factories etc.
https://www.afr.com/markets/how-to-make-money-the-sustainable-way-20180607-h113ks
Hopefully there's something similar in the US & Canada?
Disclaimer: I know one of the guys in the article.
That does look interesting but is behind a paywall - company name?
Sadly, our company only gets the paper version of AFR and haven't held on to copies from June.
: /
I just harvested my sweet potatoes*, not enough to get me much past Christmas. I need to give them a long raised row, instead of crowding them in a raised bed. Carole Deppe has a point, squash are similar in taste and nutrition and a lot easier to harvest! I may try drying a few, sweet potato air-dried chips, yum.
*I'm Canadian, sweet potatoes are a vegetable, the idea of a casserole or pie made with them is a bit odd, but I read about them for American Thanksgiving.
You got a sweet potato harvest in Canada? Clearly I need to up my game down here. Have always worried my growing season wouldn't be long enough (and the couple of plants I started in pots lost almost every leaf to bunnies once they moved outside).
Anyway, way to go!
I'll have to dig into shorter season sweet potatoes. Thanks!
Mspym this is a good place to start:
https://responsibleinvestment.org
Mspym this is a good place to start:
https://responsibleinvestment.org
Thanks! I am also planning a skype session with a friend who has just been finishing up a conference on impact investing. I mean, this sort of analysis is her Actual Grown Up Job.
Sheesh I have had all the resources I need at my fingertips and have just not made use of them. If that's not an illustration of how we get into the situation, I don't know what is.
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?
Ozone was an international effort, as outlined in the Montreal protocol
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-organizations/ozone-layer-depletion-montreal-convention.html (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-organizations/ozone-layer-depletion-montreal-convention.html)
The Kyoto accord was supposed to do the same for green house gases, but we all know how that went.
The argument is simple: government regulation is effective when there are externalities that affect a third party. He suggests that carbon pricing is a good tool.
This is a case where I agree with Friedman.
The argument is simple: government regulation is effective when there are externalities that affect a third party. He suggests that carbon pricing is a good tool.
This is a case where I agree with Friedman.
Even better than a carbon tax would be a cap and trade system, which encourages industries that can cheaply carbonize to do it quickly.
@Malaysia41 I haven't read Overshoot! I looked at a review just now as well as the synopsis. It doesn't seem particularly focused on climate change, but if I'm understanding correctly, the idea is that human beings are inevitably going to ruin themselves with exhausting our resources in general. I'd love to hear more about why you recommend this as reading material, since you obviously are making very thoughtful lifestyle changes and advocating in many ways!
@wordnerd It is pretty dismal feeling! A 10 year timeline feels so so so short, even if that's "optimistic" by some standards. I guess we can't do anything but keep doing our best. Can't wait to get baby outside in the real world so I can feel more like a normal person and can get back to trying to be more involved locally.
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.
I have a friend who makes this argument. He is childless and his hobby is flying aircraft. It is perhaps possible that this is a self-serving argument.
It doesn't matter if what we do has an impact or not. "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support." - your countryman Henry David Thoreau.
Now, what sort of lifestyle might we choose if we wished to wash our hands of personal contribution to climate change, and not to give it practically our support? I would suggest that many of the things we could do are things which would also help our finances and our personal health: stop flying, home and work closer to each-other and walk and cycle rather than drive, eat less junk food and meat, use less natural gas and electricity, and so on. If you care only about finances, these are all good things to do; if you care only about health, these are all good things to do; and if you care only about the environment, these are all good things to do.
Further, once you consider the environment of other countries, and how places like China have worse environmental practices than most of the West, and then consider also the collapse of manufacturing in the West, "buy local" is both an environmentalist and a patriotic maxim.
I'm old-fashioned. I believe: duty first. Whether or not I pay my taxes, do jury duty or military or civilian service of some kind, whether I speak well of my wife behind her back or not, whether or not I call people by racial epithets when out of their hearing, the practical impact of these things is almost zero. Nonetheless an adult in a civilised society has duties. A duty is something which whether you like it or not and whether it makes a difference or not you simply must do. A society is nothing but an accumulation of kept promises and duties met.
Now, some may reply that we as humans have no duties to one another. And I would answer that this is indeed a popular point of view, and explains much of the world's problems now, but I wash my hands of such an idea, and do not give it practically my support.
(reading backwards)
@JoshuaSpodek Your podcast sounds so cool!
@maizeman You seem really informed on this topic. Without being too nosy, is this something you focus on professionally or a passion?
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
OK look at the list:
Top 100 producers and their cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1988-2015
Count Company Percentage of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions
1 China (Coal) 14.32%
2 Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) 4.50%
3 Gazprom OAO 3.91%
4 National Iranian Oil Co 2.28%
5 ExxonMobil Corp 1.98%
6 Coal India 1.87%
7 Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) 1.87%
8 Russia (Coal) 1.86%
9 Royal Dutch Shell PLC 1.67%
10 China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) 1.56%
11 BP PLC 1.53%
12 Chevron Corp 1.31%
13 Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) 1.23%
14 Abu Dhabi National Oil Co 1.20%
15 Poland Coal 1.16%
16 Peabody Energy Corp 1.15%
17 Sonatrach SPA 1.00%
18 Kuwait Petroleum Corp 1.00%
19 Total SA 0.95%
20 BHP Billiton Ltd 0.91%
21 ConocoPhillips 0.91%
22 Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) 0.77%
23 Lukoil OAO 0.75%
24 Rio Tinto 0.75%
25 Nigerian National Petroleum Corp 0.72%
26 Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) 0.69%
27 Rosneft OAO 0.65%
28 Arch Coal Inc 0.63%
29 Iraq National Oil Co 0.60%
30 Eni SPA 0.59%
31 Anglo American 0.59%
32 Surgutneftegas OAO 0.57%
33 Alpha Natural Resources Inc 0.54%
34 Qatar Petroleum Corp 0.54%
35 PT Pertamina 0.54%
36 Kazakhstan Coal 0.53%
37 Statoil ASA 0.52%
38 National Oil Corporation of Libya 0.50%
39 Consol Energy Inc 0.50%
40 Ukraine Coal 0.49%
41 RWE AG 0.47%
42 Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd 0.40%
43 Glencore PLC 0.38%
44 TurkmenGaz 0.36%
45 Sasol Ltd 0.35%
46 Repsol SA 0.33%
47 Anadarko Petroleum Corp 0.33%
48 Egyptian General Petroleum Corp 0.31%
49 Petroleum Development Oman LLC 0.31%
50 Czech Republic Coal 0.30%
51 China Petrochemical Corp (Sinopec) 0.29%
52 China National Offshore Oil Corp Ltd (CNOOC) 0.28%
53 Ecopetrol SA 0.27%
54 Singareni Collieries Company 0.27%
55 Occidental Petroleum Corp 0.26%
56 Sonangol EP 0.26%
57 Tatneft OAO 0.23%
58 North Korea Coal 0.23%
59 Bumi Resources 0.23%
60 Suncor Energy Inc 0.22%
61 Petoro AS 0.21%
62 Devon Energy Corp 0.20%
63 Natural Resource Partners LP 0.19%
64 Marathon Oil Corp 0.19%
65 Vistra Energy 0.19%
66 Encana Corp 0.18%
67 Canadian Natural Resources Ltd 0.17%
68 Hess Corp 0.16%
69 Exxaro Resources Ltd 0.16%
70 YPF SA 0.15%
71 Apache Corp 0.15%
72 Murray Coal 0.15%
73 Alliance Resource Partners LP 0.15%
74 Syrian Petroleum Co 0.15%
75 Novatek OAO 0.14%
76 NACCO Industries Inc 0.13%
77 KazMunayGas 0.13%
78 Adaro Energy PT 0.13%
79 Petroleos del Ecuador 0.12%
80 Inpex Corp 0.12%
81 Kiewit Mining Group 0.12%
82 AP Moller (Maersk) 0.11%
83 Banpu Public Co Ltd 0.11%
84 EOG Resources Inc 0.11%
85 Husky Energy Inc 0.11%
86 Kideco Jaya Agung PT 0.10%
87 Bahrain Petroleum Co (BAPCO) 0.10%
88 Westmoreland Coal Co 0.10%
89 Cloud Peak Energy Inc 0.10%
90 Chesapeake Energy Corp 0.10%
91 Drummond Co 0.09%
92 Teck Resources Ltd 0.09%
93 Turkmennebit 0.07%
94 OMV AG 0.06%
95 Noble Energy Inc 0.06%
96 Murphy Oil Corp 0.06%
97 Berau Coal Energy Tbk PT 0.06%
98 Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk PT 0.05%
99 Indika Energy Tbk PT 0.04%
100 Southwestern Energy Co 0.04%
While it's valid to say that focusing on individuals rather than corporations is perhaps a shell game in dealing with climate change, is the problem really "neoliberalism" when the vast majority of these carbon-producers listed above are oil companies? Doesn't that make our task relatively simple? Stop driving ICE cars (or cars in general) now!
Speaking of taxes, as others did, I suggest calling it more accurately a pollution tax or externality tax, not a carbon tax. The issue isn't that people are using carbon, methane, etc but they they are affecting a shared resource and imposing costs on others.
Most people agree that a role of government is to regulate behavior that hurts others. That is, you can punch empty air in your house all you want, but if you punch someone in the nose, nearly everyone agrees on regulating that behavior.
I was thinking all yesterday on this topic. My mind is a bit blown that the people on MMM forum -- people who are capable of completely reengineering their financial lives with the additional motivation that doing so will be environmentally advantageous and much better than the rat race they were raised to believe in -- would be so fatalistic about climate change.
It would be interesting to survey this population -- is it the case that for all MMM's advice about not driving cars, in fact the bicycle commuting percentage of this readership is no better than in the general population? Has everyone simply realized (as I did long ago -- but not saying I'm better, I still own a ICE car) that you don't have to have a new car, or two cars, but not gone all the way down the rabbit hole to rejecting cars completely?
I was thinking all yesterday on this topic. My mind is a bit blown that the people on MMM forum -- people who are capable of completely reengineering their financial lives with the additional motivation that doing so will be environmentally advantageous and much better than the rat race they were raised to believe in -- would be so fatalistic about climate change.
I was thinking all yesterday on this topic. My mind is a bit blown that the people on MMM forum -- people who are capable of completely reengineering their financial lives with the additional motivation that doing so will be environmentally advantageous and much better than the rat race they were raised to believe in -- would be so fatalistic about climate change.
It would be interesting to survey this population -- is it the case that for all MMM's advice about not driving cars, in fact the bicycle commuting percentage of this readership is no better than in the general population? Has everyone simply realized (as I did long ago -- but not saying I'm better, I still own a ICE car) that you don't have to have a new car, or two cars, but not gone all the way down the rabbit hole to rejecting cars completely?
There is a sizeable number of people on this forum who hold to the MMM financial philosophy and worry about the future environment their kids will live in, but still fly their family trans-ocean more than a dozen times in one year for holidays, or fly most weeks on their self-employed business, or regard the annual trans-ocean trip to visit family as non-negotiable. They might not say so upfront in subject matter threads but the pattern is clear if you start reading case studies and journals.
And it's a significant reason why I'm depressed about climate change: if all the lovely people here are only changing their spending habits to the extent that it is personally advantageous and not inconvenient, what chance of voluntary change in the population at large?
The human species is a hierarchical pack animal (not technical terms) similar to ants, termites, bees... We think we're totally independent individuals but we copy each other madly. This website is a perfect example, everyone copying the leader, MMM, and disciples. All "radical change" (for good or bad) among humans starts with the behaviors of very small groups. Hence my belief that a small group of people capable of making the same set of radical changes in their own lives is capable of making further changes when it proves optimal.
Is transportation and energy really *not* the problem? [...]
I don't think so. Every measure I see shows transportation as the largest single cause.
And it's a significant reason why I'm depressed about climate change: if all the lovely people here are only changing their spending habits to the extent that it is personally advantageous and not inconvenient, what chance of voluntary change in the population at large?
I know a lot of people who are very environmentally conscious - they are vegan/vegetarian, eat lots of local food, grow their own, ride bikes everywhere, and keep their houses cold in winter/hot in summer.
They also tend to drive giant Mercedes sprinter vans 1000s of miles to go on climbing/mountain biking/kayaking/ski trips, fly to Hokkaido to ski deep powder or HI to surf, etc.
I have a good friend who is a passive solar architect who brought a super cool little wood-fired stove to heat up *coffee* (flown to him from around the world) after driving to meet me in Moab in his sprinter (400 miles from his home). He refused to use my propane-fueled camping stove because he felt the environmental impact was too high.
If those people (and mean us/me as well) aren't actually serious about reducing their impact (and being realistic, they're not - they're doing stuff they like to do to feel good, then blowing it all up in an instant to go do their favorite things somewhere else) then good luck with the rest of the "normal" world.
Seriously, adaptation (on a personal level as well as societal) and geoengineering are what I am thinking about at this point. The ship sailed long ago on cutting emissions. We are going to live in a world with a much higher temperature and very different climate than we have now. Time to start planning for that.
-W
Even if we can't single-handedly stop climate change by giving up flying, if your personal lifestyle is sustainable, that's still better for you because you'll have made the changes you needed to make before any sort of crisis hits, which means that by the time a crisis does come, you'll be able to cope with it far better than people who are still reliant on their planes, SUVs, and high-powered air-con/heating systems. I gave up flying myself as soon as I realised the severity of the situation.
I know a lot of people who are very environmentally conscious - they are vegan/vegetarian, eat lots of local food, grow their own, ride bikes everywhere, and keep their houses cold in winter/hot in summer.
They also tend to drive giant Mercedes sprinter vans 1000s of miles to go on climbing/mountain biking/kayaking/ski trips, fly to Hokkaido to ski deep powder or HI to surf, etc.
I have a good friend who is a passive solar architect who brought a super cool little wood-fired stove to heat up *coffee* (flown to him from around the world) after driving to meet me in Moab in his sprinter (400 miles from his home). He refused to use my propane-fueled camping stove because he felt the environmental impact was too high.
If those people (and mean us/me as well) aren't actually serious about reducing their impact (and being realistic, they're not - they're doing stuff they like to do to feel good, then blowing it all up in an instant to go do their favorite things somewhere else) then good luck with the rest of the "normal" world.
Seriously, adaptation (on a personal level as well as societal) and geoengineering are what I am thinking about at this point. The ship sailed long ago on cutting emissions. We are going to live in a world with a much higher temperature and very different climate than we have now. Time to start planning for that.
-W
Agreed. Capitalism at this point has such a hold on us that most people's idea of being environmentally friendly involves purchasing things. It seems most people can't conceive of any other way to "do" environmentalism. And the companies that trade in sustainable products know that, and profit from it.
I know a lot of people who are very environmentally conscious - they are vegan/vegetarian, eat lots of local food, grow their own, ride bikes everywhere, and keep their houses cold in winter/hot in summer.
They also tend to drive giant Mercedes sprinter vans 1000s of miles to go on climbing/mountain biking/kayaking/ski trips, fly to Hokkaido to ski deep powder or HI to surf, etc.
I have a good friend who is a passive solar architect who brought a super cool little wood-fired stove to heat up *coffee* (flown to him from around the world) after driving to meet me in Moab in his sprinter (400 miles from his home). He refused to use my propane-fueled camping stove because he felt the environmental impact was too high.
If those people (and mean us/me as well) aren't actually serious about reducing their impact (and being realistic, they're not - they're doing stuff they like to do to feel good, then blowing it all up in an instant to go do their favorite things somewhere else) then good luck with the rest of the "normal" world.
Seriously, adaptation (on a personal level as well as societal) and geoengineering are what I am thinking about at this point. The ship sailed long ago on cutting emissions. We are going to live in a world with a much higher temperature and very different climate than we have now. Time to start planning for that.
-W
Agreed. Capitalism at this point has such a hold on us that most people's idea of being environmentally friendly involves purchasing things. It seems most people can't conceive of any other way to "do" environmentalism. And the companies that trade in sustainable products know that, and profit from it.
The thing is, it's very hard as an individual to manage to do everything properly. There are a billion things that have a negative environmental impact, it's easy to aim for some of the simple to see ones and very hard to catch all the hidden ones. There's also overload . . . if you make your whole life about trying to be green, you're going to get ever diminishing returns. Having a zillion people trying to individually puzzle out all of this is incredibly inefficient. This is really an area where governments need to take a lead in helping people. There are many small areas where we can give people a bit of a push to do the right thing:
Regulation of utilities needs to happen so that flat rate charges disappear from bills. You should pay based solely on usage if we want to encourage conservation. (Currently, I pay fixed costs on my water, electricity, and gas bills that are as much or significantly exceed my usage most months . . . so why should I conserve?)
Public transit construction needs to take priority over highway and roads development. Cycling infrastructure should be created, even if it means reducing the number of lanes available for automobiles.
Building codes can be changed to make every new house and apartment significantly more energy efficient through materials, and design.
Travel by extremely polluting means should be taxed heavily. These taxes should be invested into alternative energy generation.
etc.
That's why it's so painful to watch governments not only turn their backs on the idea of leadership, but actively work in the opposite direction.
But the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
Collapse Now and Avoid the Rush (https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Now-Avoid-Rush-Archdruid-ebook/dp/B00U37BS0G)
^ this book explores this idea further. Really helped me think through our predicament when I began truly contemplating it.
9. Driving cessation won't happen overnight but already behaviorally it is reduced among teens and young adults
10. Bicycle riding in many areas is rising, and kids and teens are back into bike culture with scraper bikes and tricks
Even if you make the most environmentally ethical choices possible, in the western world, your carbon footprint is still ~3x what's arguably sustainableQuoteBut the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
-http://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416
Even if we can't single-handedly stop climate change by giving up flying, if your personal lifestyle is sustainable, that's still better for you because you'll have made the changes you needed to make before any sort of crisis hits, which means that by the time a crisis does come, you'll be able to cope with it far better than people who are still reliant on their planes, SUVs, and high-powered air-con/heating systems. I gave up flying myself as soon as I realised the severity of the situation.
Collapse Now and Avoid the Rush (https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Now-Avoid-Rush-Archdruid-ebook/dp/B00U37BS0G)
^ this book explores this idea further. Really helped me think through our predicament when I began truly contemplating it.
I know a lot of people who are very environmentally conscious - they are vegan/vegetarian, eat lots of local food, grow their own, ride bikes everywhere, and keep their houses cold in winter/hot in summer.
They also tend to drive giant Mercedes sprinter vans 1000s of miles to go on climbing/mountain biking/kayaking/ski trips, fly to Hokkaido to ski deep powder or HI to surf, etc.
I have a good friend who is a passive solar architect who brought a super cool little wood-fired stove to heat up *coffee* (flown to him from around the world) after driving to meet me in Moab in his sprinter (400 miles from his home). He refused to use my propane-fueled camping stove because he felt the environmental impact was too high.
If those people (and mean us/me as well) aren't actually serious about reducing their impact (and being realistic, they're not - they're doing stuff they like to do to feel good, then blowing it all up in an instant to go do their favorite things somewhere else) then good luck with the rest of the "normal" world.
Seriously, adaptation (on a personal level as well as societal) and geoengineering are what I am thinking about at this point. The ship sailed long ago on cutting emissions. We are going to live in a world with a much higher temperature and very different climate than we have now. Time to start planning for that.
-W
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.
I have a friend who makes this argument. He is childless and his hobby is flying aircraft. It is perhaps possible that this is a self-serving argument.
It doesn't matter if what we do has an impact or not. "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support." - your countryman Henry David Thoreau.
Now, what sort of lifestyle might we choose if we wished to wash our hands of personal contribution to climate change, and not to give it practically our support? I would suggest that many of the things we could do are things which would also help our finances and our personal health: stop flying, home and work closer to each-other and walk and cycle rather than drive, eat less junk food and meat, use less natural gas and electricity, and so on. If you care only about finances, these are all good things to do; if you care only about health, these are all good things to do; and if you care only about the environment, these are all good things to do.
Further, once you consider the environment of other countries, and how places like China have worse environmental practices than most of the West, and then consider also the collapse of manufacturing in the West, "buy local" is both an environmentalist and a patriotic maxim.
I'm old-fashioned. I believe: duty first. Whether or not I pay my taxes, do jury duty or military or civilian service of some kind, whether I speak well of my wife behind her back or not, whether or not I call people by racial epithets when out of their hearing, the practical impact of these things is almost zero. Nonetheless an adult in a civilised society has duties. A duty is something which whether you like it or not and whether it makes a difference or not you simply must do. A society is nothing but an accumulation of kept promises and duties met.
Now, some may reply that we as humans have no duties to one another. And I would answer that this is indeed a popular point of view, and explains much of the world's problems now, but I wash my hands of such an idea, and do not give it practically my support.
Yeah @RetiredAt63, perhaps the golden age of driving is over but wouldn't a return to the golden age of trains be GRAND!
I'm not holding my breath either. I can get to my hometown to visit family for free with easily acquired airline points in 2 hours versus paying almost $1000 for a 17 hour trip there. And isn't Amtrak subsidized? Why is it still garbage?
I'm not holding my breath either. I can get to my hometown to visit family for free with easily acquired airline points in 2 hours versus paying almost $1000 for a 17 hour trip there. And isn't Amtrak subsidized? Why is it still garbage?
Low ridership with fixed infrastructure cost = noncompetitive prices and terrible schedules.
Noncompetitively high prices and terrible schedules = lower ridership.
One of the college towns I visit has an amtrack stop right in town, but the only train that comes through does so sometime between 1-3 AM each day.
But hey, FIRE folk probably have no real excuse, since time is limitless, right? ;)
SIGH. Alright. This group as my witness, when my Southwest points dry up, I'll use the damn Amtrak garbage train exclusively. Gotta be part of the solution if I'm going to panic about the outcome. I can work remotely pretty much whenever I want, so there's really no excuse.
But hey, FIRE folk probably have no real excuse, since time is limitless, right? ;)
I figure that I could largely eschew travel by means other than bike once retired.
SIGH. Alright. This group as my witness, when my Southwest points dry up, I'll use the damn Amtrak garbage train exclusively. Gotta be part of the solution if I'm going to panic about the outcome. I can work remotely pretty much whenever I want, so there's really no excuse.
You're a better person than I, but good for you!
My one round trip on Via compared to flying - Via rail was less expensive but so much slower, even looking at the time spent getting to the airport early. Really the railway companies seem to be putting most of their effort into freight.
OT, time is just as valuable to those of us who are retired. Via rail certainly did not encourage to spend more time with them.
Population is the problem, not mankind's contribution to carbon dioxide in the air.
I have a friend who makes this argument. He is childless and his hobby is flying aircraft. It is perhaps possible that this is a self-serving argument.
It doesn't matter if what we do has an impact or not. "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support." - your countryman Henry David Thoreau.
Now, what sort of lifestyle might we choose if we wished to wash our hands of personal contribution to climate change, and not to give it practically our support? I would suggest that many of the things we could do are things which would also help our finances and our personal health: stop flying, home and work closer to each-other and walk and cycle rather than drive, eat less junk food and meat, use less natural gas and electricity, and so on. If you care only about finances, these are all good things to do; if you care only about health, these are all good things to do; and if you care only about the environment, these are all good things to do.
Further, once you consider the environment of other countries, and how places like China have worse environmental practices than most of the West, and then consider also the collapse of manufacturing in the West, "buy local" is both an environmentalist and a patriotic maxim.
I'm old-fashioned. I believe: duty first. Whether or not I pay my taxes, do jury duty or military or civilian service of some kind, whether I speak well of my wife behind her back or not, whether or not I call people by racial epithets when out of their hearing, the practical impact of these things is almost zero. Nonetheless an adult in a civilised society has duties. A duty is something which whether you like it or not and whether it makes a difference or not you simply must do. A society is nothing but an accumulation of kept promises and duties met.
Now, some may reply that we as humans have no duties to one another. And I would answer that this is indeed a popular point of view, and explains much of the world's problems now, but I wash my hands of such an idea, and do not give it practically my support.
My one round trip on Via compared to flying - Via rail was less expensive but so much slower, even looking at the time spent getting to the airport early. Really the railway companies seem to be putting most of their effort into freight.
OT, time is just as valuable to those of us who are retired. Via rail certainly did not encourage to spend more time with them.
By comparison, passenger rail in China is amazing. Cheaper than flying, you have a lot more space than in an airplane seat, getting through security isn't nearly as bad as the airport, and the trains run at something like 180 mph, which is still substantially slower than planes, but for flights under ~3 hours it ends up being a wash because you save enough time on security and boarding/deboarding to make up for the longer time in transit.
Imagine if we could convince more companies to let people work from home? If only those who really had to be present at their workplace (medical personell, bus drivers, etc) commuted, while the rest of us worked from home or smaller hubs. Not only would we get rid of a lot of travels, but we would need much fewer office buildings, with their energy use and occupied space.
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head. For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement? Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either: a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation?
I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head. For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement? Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either: a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation?I'm FIRED, and 'saving humanity' is my full time job. Even though I know it's pretty much futile.
I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.
I read through this thread and am left scratching my head. For those who truly believe that climate change is man-made and that we should do everything in our power to prevent/slow/stop it, how can you justify early retirement? Driving and flying less, eating less meat, and having fewer kids is all well and good, but if we really, truly want to do all we can to help, shouldn't we either: a) devote our lives to a job that tries to find solutions to the dire state that we are in or b) make as much money as possible and donate it all to causes that can help the situation?
I get that retiring early can make an impact by reducing the need for transportation, but it seems to me that not retiring and working until the day we die to solve some of these problems (or earn more money and pay other people to do it) would have a far greater impact.
Being FIRE doesn't mean giving up advocacy and civic engagement. It just means you don't have to paid to do it, right? :)
Also, I don't think anyone over 50 should be allowed to block climate change action, since they will die before they see the results of their stupidity and they are allowing their own greed and short-sightedness to rob future generations of a liveable planet.
FIRE (at least the sort we do here) depends almost completely on modern capitalist society fueled by fossil fuels. Period. We're just as much a part of the problem as someone who's working 9-5.
-W
FIRE (at least the sort we do here) depends almost completely on modern capitalist society fueled by fossil fuels. Period. We're just as much a part of the problem as someone who's working 9-5.
-W
I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.
I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?
Exactly -- that was my point. Unless you're like Malaysia41 and FIRE so that you can work full-time on advocacy, you should get back to work if you really do care...
I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?
Where do you think that 4% SWR, dividend, rent check comes from? It comes from modern industry generating profits for you as an owner of the company/building/resource - and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, if your "FIRE" is subsistence farming, no use of electricity or fossil fuels, no foods other than what you can grow/hunt or trade with others in your immediate area, and maybe one very old and well used bicycle that you'll keep for a long time as your ONLY form of transportation, then my comments don't apply.
-W
https://earther.gizmodo.com/geoengineering-is-inevitable-1829623031
If I had a few billion I might do it myself. IMO it'd be better to start now before SHTF and while everything is still working well so we have resources to deal with unforeseen effects.
-W
I'm not seeing how this is the case. Can you explain what you mean?
Where do you think that 4% SWR, dividend, rent check comes from? It comes from modern industry generating profits for you as an owner of the company/building/resource - and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, if your "FIRE" is subsistence farming, no use of electricity or fossil fuels, no foods other than what you can grow/hunt or trade with others in your immediate area, and maybe one very old and well used bicycle that you'll keep for a long time as your ONLY form of transportation, then my comments don't apply.
-W
My understanding the the 4% withdrawal rate comes from our economy generating profits. An economy fueled by alternative energy and sustainable practices could do the same. There were a few discussions on here and links to ethical investing.
I do see what you mean about capitalism and perpetual growth/consumption, though. *shrug* I guess we'll see.
I like all of the ideas for population control through social education and incentives in your second paragraph, and they can be implemented in developed countries too. I disagree with any forced population control methods, since I think reproduction is a natural biological need for many, if not a human right.I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.
I think this has briefly been touched upon before, but children in developed countries use a lot more resources compared to children born in countries where people still have 3+ kids (something like 10x, depending on the countries you compare). I do fully agree with you that women education and child survival should improve to reduce those birthrates, but that's no freebie to get more babies over here in the west. I never really get the argument of "our population is declining already!!". Yes, it's gonna be a problem as our pension system (SS equivalent in my country and many others) is built on a small group of elderly and a large group of working adults. It's also built on a limited number of people that need intensive healthcare. But does the fact that this has been our system for the last 100 or so years mean that we have to keep the system this way? Do you think our current number of inhabitants is a 'good' number that should be maintained?
I'm not saying people should completely stop having kids. But there's a few ways we could slightly reduce our numbers. Legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability and sex education, possibility for euthanasia at old age/sickness and no child benefits after the 1st or 2nd child would be some options. All of these options could also be used in countries with higher birth rates than ours. I don't think any of those measures will be impactful enough though to solve the environmental problems, so we'll still have to do other things. I don't see any good in forced 1 child policies like China's and killing people for the sake of the environment also doesn't sound like a good idea.
I like all of the ideas for population control through social education and incentives in your second paragraph, and they can be implemented in developed countries too. I disagree with any forced population control methods, since I think reproduction is a natural biological need for many, if not a human right.I would love to be able to work from home at least some of the time, although I either bike or transit to work anyway so it wouldn't change my carbon emissions. One thing from this thread that I do reject though is to not have any children as a way of combating climate change. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to have replacement level children, and in fact in developed countries with diminishing birth levels, it's probably a good thing. The real effort to be made in terms of overpopulation is to reduce births in countries where most people have 3+ kids, and the way to do that is education (especially of girls), access to jobs (especially for women) and healthcare (so kids don't die). If every country had those three things, birth rates would drop naturally without the need for enforced population control, and the world population would stabilize.
I think this has briefly been touched upon before, but children in developed countries use a lot more resources compared to children born in countries where people still have 3+ kids (something like 10x, depending on the countries you compare). I do fully agree with you that women education and child survival should improve to reduce those birthrates, but that's no freebie to get more babies over here in the west. I never really get the argument of "our population is declining already!!". Yes, it's gonna be a problem as our pension system (SS equivalent in my country and many others) is built on a small group of elderly and a large group of working adults. It's also built on a limited number of people that need intensive healthcare. But does the fact that this has been our system for the last 100 or so years mean that we have to keep the system this way? Do you think our current number of inhabitants is a 'good' number that should be maintained?
I'm not saying people should completely stop having kids. But there's a few ways we could slightly reduce our numbers. Legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability and sex education, possibility for euthanasia at old age/sickness and no child benefits after the 1st or 2nd child would be some options. All of these options could also be used in countries with higher birth rates than ours. I don't think any of those measures will be impactful enough though to solve the environmental problems, so we'll still have to do other things. I don't see any good in forced 1 child policies like China's and killing people for the sake of the environment also doesn't sound like a good idea.
For me personally, since I lead a relatively low carbon life compared to my country's average, I think my kids would too, at least as long as I had control over it. I also think that if all the people concerned about climate change didn't have kids, the next generation would only consist of people whose parents didn't care, and that's not necessarily a desirable outcome. In my country, our population is small vs our landmass, and our habitable area is probably going to increase as temperatures go up. We can accommodate both more immigrants, and more people being born, but at the same time we need to transition away from fossil fuels and overconsumption. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to just stop having kids, but many people will choose not too, and most people will choose to have less as they get wealthier, healthier and more educated, so the problem will gradually solve itself if we put the right resources to work.
This discussion is going round in circles a bit isn't it!
I'd agree that we have a problem with legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education here in America. In another discussion about generational poverty, the point was brought up that if people weren't raised in an environment where getting pregnant early was "just what happens", and they had real information about how to cause/prevent pregnancy, it would make a huge difference in a lot of lives. Fewer unwanted teenage births, more people who are able to finish their education and have time to make careers for themselves, etc. Yes, they might end up being people who have more money to travel abroad and pollute with their plane trips, but they'll probably have fewer children, and be far more productive throughout their lives.
I'd agree that we have a problem with legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education here in America. In another discussion about generational poverty, the point was brought up that if people weren't raised in an environment where getting pregnant early was "just what happens", and they had real information about how to cause/prevent pregnancy, it would make a huge difference in a lot of lives. Fewer unwanted teenage births, more people who are able to finish their education and have time to make careers for themselves, etc. Yes, they might end up being people who have more money to travel abroad and pollute with their plane trips, but they'll probably have fewer children, and be far more productive throughout their lives.
Umm, here is where I get fussy about names and terms. "Here in America" should be here in the United States. I am also in North America, and we have legal/good options for abortion, decent birth control availability, and sex education. Not as good as I would like, but not bad.
As well, timing of births matter. I know I keep talking about generation time, but it does matter. Having your first baby at 20 is totally different from having your first at 30, if it is repeated for a few generations. So a family can have 2 (or occasionally even 3) and not have a huge impact, if they have them later. This is where I think the effect of women's education comes in, you don't have babies if you are still in school and working to have a future, you have the babies when you are more settled in your life. If you have no education and no plans other than babies, you have your babies.
Agree completely. But, it still doesn't change the equation. The population size is what drives CO2 emissions. We can, however, do our best to reduce it on an individual level. I just don't think it will be enough.Nope, you're still not grasping it. This is the equation:
For anyone thinking it's too difficult to get the whole country to change a habit, being that we are such independent people and don't like being told what to do (Americans), I'd like to point out the American male went from over 50% smokers to less than 17% from 1955 to 2015. A concerted campaign and a political awareness of the facts regarding pollution (versus the hysterics) and affects on health, economy and the coastline can put even the reddest politicians on the side of the environment. Self interest is universal. Green investing has been found profitable in quite a few red states. Corporations poisoning the water tables and the air around isn't just a problem for liberals, our fisheries and tourist attractions need to make a profit too, right?
Even if you make the most environmentally ethical choices possible, in the western world, your carbon footprint is still ~3x what's arguably sustainableQuoteBut the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
-http://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416
I feel that a Swiftian solution may help us here. What if we eat the homeless?
Even if you make the most environmentally ethical choices possible, in the western world, your carbon footprint is still ~3x what's arguably sustainableQuoteBut the "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons, the class found. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
-http://news.mit.edu/2008/footprint-tt0416
I feel that a Swiftian solution may help us here. What if we eat the homeless?
They don't have much of a carbon footprint though, do they? /wink
6. Buy electrical power from other sources preferring in order: wind, geothermal, solar, hydroelectric, landfill gas or natural gas, waste burning, bagasse. Don't even think about nuclear or coal.
I
In their defence, they were pleased to report that nuclear power is being considered by these "Greenies". (Hey maybe it's because they are scientists not Greenies... )
Nuclear power is controversial for a number of reasons, but as a zero carbon energy source it needs to be discussed soberly in connection with climate change.It's not zero-carbon, it's low carbon. There exist no zero carbon electricity sources. The iron must be dug from the ground - with drills using oil. It must be roasted with coking coal - a process chemically releasing CO2. It must be melted and alloyed with other things like vanadium for hardening or chromium to make it "stainless". Aluminium for wind turbines must also be dug up and refined, and it's made with huge amounts of electricity. Concrete's materials are likewise dug up and ground up and refined, and the concrete setting chemical process also releases CO2. And then the plants when built have to be maintained with vehicles tooling around, parts replaced and so on.
I
In their defence, they were pleased to report that nuclear power is being considered by these "Greenies". (Hey maybe it's because they are scientists not Greenies... )
And maybe a lot of scientists are "greenies" because of the science?
That's why it's so painful to watch governments not only turn their backs on the idea of leadership, but actively work in the opposite direction.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Traveling cross country, at least in US, sounds hellacious and unrealistic for families. I do think that people being able to see different parts of the world is an awesome thing and there should be a conscious effort to create opportunities for that!
Nuclear power is controversial for a number of reasons, but as a zero carbon energy source it needs to be discussed soberly in connection with climate change.It's not zero-carbon, it's low carbon. There exist no zero carbon electricity sources. The iron must be dug from the ground - with drills using oil. It must be roasted with coking coal - a process chemically releasing CO2. It must be melted and alloyed with other things like vanadium for hardening or chromium to make it "stainless". Aluminium for wind turbines must also be dug up and refined, and it's made with huge amounts of electricity. Concrete's materials are likewise dug up and ground up and refined, and the concrete setting chemical process also releases CO2. And then the plants when built have to be maintained with vehicles tooling around, parts replaced and so on.
Hydroelectric's often thought of as low emissions, but in some cases the emissions are even higher than for coal - because they flood a wooded river valley, and all the plant matter rots and releases methane, which is a strong greenhouse gas (at least 23 times stronger than CO2, though some scientists recently are arguing for calling it 32 times or even higher).
The net result is that for each kWh of electricity produced, we get something like,
0.07kgCO2-equivalent = Geothermal, Solar PV, Solar thermal, Wind
0.22kgCO2e = Hydroelectric/kWh
0.44kgCO2e = Nuclear, Landfill gas or Natural gas
1.50kgCO2e = Oil or Coal
Now, some individual power plants are better, and some are much worse; my own state of Victoria's old Hazelwood plant burning brown coal had about twice the emissions of a regular plant. And the French nuclear plants are pretty good, while the Chinese ones are awful in terms of carbon emissions.
There's no such thing as zero emissions. There's just more or less emissions. But again we come to Jeavon's Paradox; halving the emissions from each kWh of electricity may lead to more electricity use, and thus the emissions don't drop as much as you might expect, or in fact they go up.
In any case, with or without global warming the issue is depleting resources. The oil is going to run short, then the gas, and finally the coal. Some time in the middle the uranium will run short.
We can make the uranium last longer with breeder reactors, but that also makes more plutonium, and going on the Iran and DPRK experience, quite simply the Western world is not going to let the Third World have a stack of plutonium - any solution to the energy and emissions problem must be a global one, or along with electricity it will generate conflicts. Thorium reactors have some promise, but thorium reactors require a plutonium seed, so that each thorium reactor requires a uranium reactor.
Basically, if we insist on powering our lifestyles by burning things - whether the burning is combustion or fission - then our lifestyle like those things will be finite.
Consume less. It takes some years and billions of dollars to build new and better power plants, but we can reduce our consumption now. And again: even if you don't care about the environment or depleting resources, these are all good things to do for our finances and physical health, too. You don't need to be a greenie to think that fresh fruit and vegies and bicycling are better for you and your wallet than takeout and driving.
That's why it's so painful to watch governments not only turn their backs on the idea of leadership, but actively work in the opposite direction.
Social and cultural change generally start from outside government. Government nearly always follows.
Consume less. It takes some years and billions of dollars to build new and better power plants, but we can reduce our consumption now. And again: even if you don't care about the environment or depleting resources, these are all good things to do for our finances and physical health, too. You don't need to be a greenie to think that fresh fruit and vegies and bicycling are better for you and your wallet than takeout and driving.
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.
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.
No one's going with option, "EHHH, WHO GIVES A SHIT, WE ALL DIE ANYWAY, PARTY HARDY." Which is a relief.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
In that spirit, I give you some Pooh bear based vegan messaging:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpiTmtWnXtz2UBkXjWbLUQaZ30u49wnLzpFp873fYPk0qsVnBgYw)
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.
In that spirit, I give you some Pooh bear based vegan messaging:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpiTmtWnXtz2UBkXjWbLUQaZ30u49wnLzpFp873fYPk0qsVnBgYw)
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?
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)
Lastly, did any of you watch that Nate Hagens 'Blindspots and Superheroes' lecture? I'd love to know what you think.
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.
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. :-)
Visualization on climate opinions by Yale Climate Communications program: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county
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.
We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:QuoteI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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. .
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.
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.
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.
@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.
Americans used to associate cigarettes with Humphrey Bogart. Now we associate them with cancer and few actors will smoke in public.Norms can change and quite quickly. Watch the original "The Parent Trap" and the remake (1961, 1998).
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.
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.I'm speaking from the perspective of Australia, where most of our population growth has been in the capital cities, which has meant they've sprawled. New developments tend to be... just housing. Seriously. Maybe a token bit of parkland. There are no shops, no industrial areas, and usually there's a lot of dramas just to get a GP's office and a primary school. The housing is cheaper than most - and for those reasons. So people move there and drive to work somewhere else 30km or more away.
@Kyle Schuant I love your argument and it makes perfect sense to me. It's the poor battlers of the outer suburb currently paying road tolls and wearing the petrol pain, whilst your inner city dwellers get buses, trains and ferries.
One small matter though, $100m will not get you much public transport.
Case in point is the Sydney light rail. Never underestimate the capacity for governments to infinitely bugger things up.
We saw what happened in Edinburgh with the tram construction, and not only did we make the same mistakes, we ended up having it cost a billion more too.
I really want to believe the right thing will be done with money raised. But in the next 6 months we have a Victorian election, a NSW election and the Federal Election and the money taps will be turned on like never before....
I think Kyle's mistake is to use a $1 per tonne of emissions. Most of the modelling I have seen talks of an absolute minimum of $12 per tonne, and an expectation of $20 per tonne is common. At that price, not $100 million but 2 billion would be raised every year, which again is not enough for all of the construction costs of light rail extensions etc, but would be a nice addition to current expenditures on public transport.
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.I'm speaking from the perspective of Australia, where most of our population growth has been in the capital cities, which has meant they've sprawled. New developments tend to be... just housing. Seriously. Maybe a token bit of parkland. There are no shops, no industrial areas, and usually there's a lot of dramas just to get a GP's office and a primary school. The housing is cheaper than most - and for those reasons. So people move there and drive to work somewhere else 30km or more away.
Housing closer to work and/or with existing public transport will be considerably more expensive. So people on higher incomes can do that, but people on lower incomes can't. This means that the single mother on a $15k pension can't get work at all but has to (indirectly) pay the carbon tax through the food etc she buys, and a cleaner on minimum wage of $37k is forced to drive and pay the carbon tax, but the accountant on $150k can live somewhere near a tram or train line and has a comfortable commute to work - and pays no carbon tax.
Put another way, one of the reasons we here are seeking wealth is that wealth gives you choices. Low-income people have fewer choices, and thus a carbon tax alone is a regressive tax. We'd need its revenue to go to subsidies to avoid this, to give lower-income people choices. For example, setting aside land in developments for public services, commercial and industrial and public transport use.
Thus, in the absence of subsidies, the carbon tax is simply another broad consumption tax, and is regressive, with the poor paying a larger proportion of their income than the wealthy.
One small matter though, $100m will not get you much public transport.I don't expect it to. It would have been clearer for me to say, "for each $1 a tonne of emissions, you get $100 million of revenue." It was also to illustrate that each 1/3 cent extra per litre on petrol/diesel could raise $100 million, so that a relatively small tax could raise a significant revenue. Here petrol prices vary quite a lot. Just in the last 45 days the average price around Melbourne has been as low as $1.47/lt and as high as $1.67/lt. So a carbon tax equivalent to even 5c/lt (~$17/t CO2e) would be lost in the noise of day-to-day variation of prices. And that's $1.5 billion.
Really capturing the economic value of the emissions, honestly I think a fair rate would be $1,000/t CO2e.
...
A more sensible approach is just to start with a token tax, and have it enshrined in law how it'll rise each year.
I don't see anything in what you're posting that suggests Australians would be unable to start carpooling if the cost of fuel got high enough.The poorer someone is, the more likely they are to be working odd hours rather than the nine-to-five, which makes carpooling much less practical.
At a high enough tax rate, you'd probably also see some net inward migration back into city centers through more households choosing to share expensive central apartments or houses rather than living in far flung cheaper/larger places.Fine if you are single, doesn't work so well if you have kids.
I don't see anything in what you're posting that suggests Australians would be unable to start carpooling if the cost of fuel got high enough.The poorer someone is, the more likely they are to be working odd hours rather than the nine-to-five, which makes carpooling much less practical.
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.
Move closer!
And of course, a carbon tax is also about compensating the damage we cause to third parties.
I don't think a carbon tax in one city is going to do much. It's like the firearms laws in one city. People will just cross the city lines to buy fuel, etc. Local subsidies can work, but local punitive taxes not so well.
Really capturing the economic value of the emissions, honestly I think a fair rate would be $1,000/t CO2e.
...
A more sensible approach is just to start with a token tax, and have it enshrined in law how it'll rise each year.
Washington's carbon tax ballot measure (https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1482.pdf), if it passes this time, would start at $15/ton and ramp up $2 per year plus inflation, until it hits $55/ton. It's expected to raise over two billion dollars in the first five years.
And to address the concerns raised above about it being regressive, the revenue raised is specifically targeted at low-income communities and places most directly impacted by climate change. It's not a perfect law, but it's better than the version that failed in 2016 and I expect that it will pass.
Ask me again in three weeks.
Hmm, I liked the failed version quite a bit better.
If you prefer subsidies to punitive measures, where does the money come from?I prefer both, working together. And a $1,000/t tax today would be punitive, but a (say) $20/t which rises each year would simply be encouraging the market in one direction.
As an Australian, we have an island country, so borders are less of an issue. My thoughts for a long long time are that we should:This is a good list. The theme is clear: price in the externalities and use the money to incentivize changes in behavior and fund programs to reduce carbon. I like the way this deals with imports and exports, which addresses the borders issue (still an issue for carbon in a global marketplace).
- Tax any fossil fuel where it leaves the ground or comes into the country, at a minimum of $20 a tonne of emissions, ramping up over time.
- Place an import tax on goods coming into the country from jurisdictions that do not have at least a complementary carbon tax of similar proportions, at a level that adds in the cost of the untaxed carbon embedded in the item.
- Provide a subsidy for export goods to countries that do not have a carbon tax or similar regime to Australia to compensate the extra cost for exporters.
- Use the funds raised, which will be significant, to provide incentives for locally produced renewable technologies, and to fund research into alternative energy management and transport technologies
These would cause a one-off increase in costs, but would also provide a clear price signal for any product that uses fossil fuels in its manufacture, delivery and sale.
Come the revolution....
As an Australian, we have an island country, so borders are less of an issue. My thoughts for a long long time are that we should:This is a good list. The theme is clear: price in the externalities and use the money to incentivize changes in behavior and fund programs to reduce carbon. I like the way this deals with imports and exports, which addresses the borders issue (still an issue for carbon in a global marketplace).
- Tax any fossil fuel where it leaves the ground or comes into the country, at a minimum of $20 a tonne of emissions, ramping up over time.
- Place an import tax on goods coming into the country from jurisdictions that do not have at least a complementary carbon tax of similar proportions, at a level that adds in the cost of the untaxed carbon embedded in the item.
- Provide a subsidy for export goods to countries that do not have a carbon tax or similar regime to Australia to compensate the extra cost for exporters.
- Use the funds raised, which will be significant, to provide incentives for locally produced renewable technologies, and to fund research into alternative energy management and transport technologies
These would cause a one-off increase in costs, but would also provide a clear price signal for any product that uses fossil fuels in its manufacture, delivery and sale.
Come the revolution....
All the personal guilt trip stuff (e.g. why aren't you a vegan already?) isn't really going to work, and it just further polarizes the identity politics of this issue. My 2 cents.
Isn't buying an hybrid or an electric vehicle the most likely solution to be adopted by people with similar commutes as Kyle's? NNo, because both are more expensive here. As well for pure electric, you're also dealing with the cost of electricity, which has risen a lot in recent years.
Isn't buying an hybrid or an electric vehicle the most likely solution to be adopted by people with similar commutes as Kyle's? NNo, because both are more expensive here. As well for pure electric, you're also dealing with the cost of electricity, which has risen a lot in recent years.
Essentially what happens is that the money people save on mortgage by living in a place in Woop Woop they end up spending on transport - I mean, if you're talking about the 10-30 years of a mortgage. It's cheap for a reason. However, as has been discussed on this forum many times, lower income people often end up spending more on things than higher income people, in the long run, because they lack the money to do a big one-off spend that'll last them. For example, buying the $20/50 roll toilet paper rather than the $6/6 roll. For the person on a $250pw pension, that $14 is marked for somewhere else.
Likewise, a hybrid vehicle may save someone with a long commute money over several years, but it costs more today.
As a guideline, if you ever look at a problem and find yourself saying "It's simple, we just -" then you're probably wrong.
This article (https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/vicar-prays-for-train-as-study-shows-1-4m-melburnians-can-t-reach-public-transport-20181025-p50bw4.html) talks about the transport situation here in Melbourne.
The carbon tax was announced this month, coming into effect for 2019. Canada has a carbon tax starting in 2019 at $20/tonne and rising to $50 in 2022. Some jurisdictions have their own equivalent programs but the federal tax is the backstop and covers the entire country. Carbon tax and marijuana were announced in the same month, its a wild country.
It's great that most (all?) Canadian provinces have a carbon tax but it's unfortunate that Canada is still high in the CO2/capita rankings. Is it too low to affect consumer choices?
The carbon tax was announced this month, coming into effect for 2019. Canada has a carbon tax starting in 2019 at $20/tonne and rising to $50 in 2022. Some jurisdictions have their own equivalent programs but the federal tax is the backstop and covers the entire country. Carbon tax and marijuana were announced in the same month, its a wild country.
It's great that most (all?) Canadian provinces have a carbon tax but it's unfortunate that Canada is still high in the CO2/capita rankings. Is it too low to affect consumer choices?
Canada is also phasing out Coal by 2030 (60 million tonnes of GHG/year are being decomissioned), likely using a combination of Natural gas and other sources as replacements (add in 20-30 million tonnes for replacement electricity sources). But thats a plan that started in 2008, its a long term plan that is on course, some plants have already ceased operations; anything that is getting old is not being refurbished. That's just one example of industrial cuts that are concurrently happening.
The point is that things take time. Is enough being done? Nope, but some things are still in their infancy. We have personal cuts and industrial cuts, work is being done at multiple levels.
Stay tuned for 3 years, the data hasn't arrived to yet on how much it changes consumer behaviour.
I'm on a 'low information diet' for a while (got overwhelmed with what's going on at the moment so I'm going cold turkey), but it seems like the carbon tax... is being treated as an election bribe - not a serious attempt. We're getting so much rebated in Ontario that the government will actually be giving us money. Huh? They should be using the revenue to... um... reduce carbon in the atmosphere, no?
They need to seriously raise the price of fuel if they want to see fewer pickups. I'm going back to the UK where fairly normal cars are getting as good, or better, fuel efficiency than a Prius does here - 4 l/100km. Not solely because fuel is $2/litre, but I'm sure it helps (and we seem to just adapt - we'll pay $50 a week on fuel, and buy a vehicle that burns that much, regardless of the cost of said fuel!).
Last time I was in Ontario I was flabbergasted by how many people had huge pick up trucks. People who own them don't seem to need them for work 80% of the time, and they all complain about how expensive gas is. It's not going to be fun for them, and they won't be able to sell easily. I hope this is the shock they need to start being more concious of their footprint, but in the meantime before they get new cars they'll suffer. The rebate just eases that transition a little.
This was in Windsor, not rural but not a big city. As I was walking around it seemed like over half of the homes had a pick up in the driveway. Only a couple of them showed signs of being work trucks.Last time I was in Ontario I was flabbergasted by how many people had huge pick up trucks. People who own them don't seem to need them for work 80% of the time, and they all complain about how expensive gas is. It's not going to be fun for them, and they won't be able to sell easily. I hope this is the shock they need to start being more concious of their footprint, but in the meantime before they get new cars they'll suffer. The rebate just eases that transition a little.
It's not so bad in the cities, but rural Ontario certainly has a pickup truck problem. I went for a job interview at Bruce nuclear just outside of Kincardine and 9/10 vehicles in the parking lot were large pickup trucks.
This was in Windsor, not rural but not a big city. As I was walking around it seemed like over half of the homes had a pick up in the driveway. Only a couple of them showed signs of being work trucks.Last time I was in Ontario I was flabbergasted by how many people had huge pick up trucks. People who own them don't seem to need them for work 80% of the time, and they all complain about how expensive gas is. It's not going to be fun for them, and they won't be able to sell easily. I hope this is the shock they need to start being more concious of their footprint, but in the meantime before they get new cars they'll suffer. The rebate just eases that transition a little.
It's not so bad in the cities, but rural Ontario certainly has a pickup truck problem. I went for a job interview at Bruce nuclear just outside of Kincardine and 9/10 vehicles in the parking lot were large pickup trucks.
In Montreal I hardly ever see them, except for corporate vehicles. Parallel parking and idling in traffic would be horrendous. Although it would probably help over potholes.
So I'll admit i didn't read this whole thread, but I'll chime in with my optimism. This post assumes the crisis is invetiably coming/here, which is something I still hear debate over.
Yall are forgetting what the human race is capable of, and how unbelievably smart we are. If you had told someone in 1937 that in under 10 years we would have the capability of building a single bomb that could destroy the entire planet, you'd be laughed at. In 1938 nuclear fission was discovered, and the Manhattan project was an unbelievable project of unbelievable scale executed unbelievably quickly
A couple decades later, the space race is even more inspiring. This is a humanity that had just stumbled into the AIRFOIL a couple DECADES ago, and in basically the blink of an eye we have human beings on camping trips on other celestial bodies
Someone on this thread said that humans are bad at anything but a short term crisis. I think that's not quite right, we just need to feel the crisis at all. The reason nothing is happening is because, well, when I look outside, nothing is happening. It might take some actual issues arising before a crisis is felt, but once there is an actual crisis at hand, I think we'll see a human cooperation operation that puts those two to shame. If I'm being exceptionally optimistic, this might be the kick in the pants humanity needs to cooperate globally. This might be the kick in the pants humanity needs to restructure it's cities to use muscle for 99% of tasks, and solar power for the rest. It might be the kick we need to get to that star trek utopia.
In just the last couple years there have been some pretty amazing inventions that scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, and I'm sure there are more to come, not to mention the physics that hasn't even been discovered yet. I was just doing research last year on new insanely efficient organic perovskite solar materials that weren't even remotely feasible 2 years before that, and that's small fry low budget University stuff. Imagine what can happen with a Manhattan project or a space race only orders of magnitude larger.
I think it will create a new generation of heros, and I'll be in the middle of it helping if possible.
So no, I, for one, don't believe "we're all fucked", I have more faith in the collective cooperation of humanity than that.
I do, however, believe that something needs to change, and I'm optimistic that it will.
The first order of business is actually getting everybody to feel like there is, in fact, a threat.
-----background, guess I'll find out if anyone I know is on here, lol------
Bachelors of Engineering (electrical)
Halfway through masters of materials science
Was a system level expert and engineer helping build the radiation budget instrument, before it was cancelled. I knew the system photons to bits.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-cancels-earth-science-sensor-set-for-2021-launch
A lot of my coworkers just completed the GOSAT-2/TANSO-FTS-2 that launched into orbit yesterday
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/japanese-h-iia-gosat-2-earth-observation-satellite/
What your scenario says to me is: we are going to fuck up the planet so badly that we destroy the climate that we know, that significant parts of the natural environment, including many species and habitats, are entirely lost, and that many billions of people in the poorer parts of the world without access to advanced technology will live lives of desperation and die early, but that it will be all right because there are a few humans living in rich part of the world behind a strong military will be able to survive better than all the others.
Gee, thanks for giving me that hope.
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 (https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/when-innovation-technology-fail-us.html) and spoke about it on my podcast (http://joshuaspodek.com/technology-wont-solve-environmental).
If you make a polluting system more efficient, it pollutes more efficiently.
@magnet18, your background uses the word "system" a lot, so I take it you understand systems perspective. Have you read anything like Limits to Growth? If not, I recommend it, the 30 year update in particular. You don't have to agree with it to learn a lot from it.
Here's a post that a friend of mine who is both one of the most knowledgeable people I know regarding environmental issues and is a climate change skeptic that touches on the complexity in responding to the environment: https://www.financialsense.com/contributors/ugo-bardi/peak-civilization. It's long, but light. If you choose to read it, I'm curious your thoughts.
Your examples of human achievement didn't mention any of the great civilizations that collapsed. That article treats the Roman empire, but there are hundreds of others.
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 (https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/when-innovation-technology-fail-us.html) and spoke about it on my podcast (http://joshuaspodek.com/technology-wont-solve-environmental).
If you make a polluting system more efficient, it pollutes more efficiently.
To reduce pollution, we have to change the system, not just make it more efficient. 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?
Generally preaching at people doesn't work, case and point telling everyone to be vegan. While it would be better for the environment the odds of getting everyone to do it in a lifetime time frame is nil and even over generational time frames the odds are also very low. Plus, at the end of the day humans are still omnivores so some animal products are still needed in our diet. This isn't even really considering the negative cultural impact that "complete vegan" would have. There are a lot of cultural practices around the world that are tied to the consumption of animal products and it takes a lot to get people to give those up. However, most people also eat a lot more meat than they really need to and it's a lot easier to nudge people to simply altering their diet to include less meat. Case and point, most people have a couple meals a week that are already ovo-lacto vegetarian so it's not that much of a stretch to get them to increase the count a bit more.
Generally preaching at people doesn't work, case and point telling everyone to be vegan. While it would be better for the environment the odds of getting everyone to do it in a lifetime time frame is nil and even over generational time frames the odds are also very low. Plus, at the end of the day humans are still omnivores so some animal products are still needed in our diet. This isn't even really considering the negative cultural impact that "complete vegan" would have. There are a lot of cultural practices around the world that are tied to the consumption of animal products and it takes a lot to get people to give those up. However, most people also eat a lot more meat than they really need to and it's a lot easier to nudge people to simply altering their diet to include less meat. Case and point, most people have a couple meals a week that are already ovo-lacto vegetarian so it's not that much of a stretch to get them to increase the count a bit more.
This is a topic for a different thread, but that statement is ridiculously false, two of the longest lived and healthiest populations in history (Okinawan and 7th day Adventist) were completely vegan
If anything, I've seen enough convincing evidence to be of the opinion that humans are biologically better suited to be herbivores, and only omnivores because of cultural norms (or necessity, if no other options are available)
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 (https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/when-innovation-technology-fail-us.html) and spoke about it on my podcast (http://joshuaspodek.com/technology-wont-solve-environmental).
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 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/article-if-the-point-of-capitalism-is-to-escape-capitalism/msg2172326/#msg2172326).
Since you think I'm not doing anything, I do ask, what do you propose I do?
Generally preaching at people doesn't work, case and point telling everyone to be vegan. While it would be better for the environment the odds of getting everyone to do it in a lifetime time frame is nil and even over generational time frames the odds are also very low. Plus, at the end of the day humans are still omnivores so some animal products are still needed in our diet. This isn't even really considering the negative cultural impact that "complete vegan" would have. There are a lot of cultural practices around the world that are tied to the consumption of animal products and it takes a lot to get people to give those up. However, most people also eat a lot more meat than they really need to and it's a lot easier to nudge people to simply altering their diet to include less meat. Case and point, most people have a couple meals a week that are already ovo-lacto vegetarian so it's not that much of a stretch to get them to increase the count a bit more.
This is a topic for a different thread, but that statement is ridiculously false, two of the longest lived and healthiest populations in history (Okinawan and 7th day Adventist) were completely vegan
If anything, I've seen enough convincing evidence to be of the opinion that humans are biologically better suited to be herbivores, and only omnivores because of cultural norms (or necessity, if no other options are available)
I know we are getting OT here, but our dentition and digestive tracts are very similar to raccoons and pigs, which are both omnivores. We can cope with a completely plant diet because we cook our food, which breaks down plant cell walls. We don't have a rumen or a cecum (well, we do, it is our appendix) so we cannot digest cellulose. Of course an omnivorous diet doesn't have to include meat from large animals, but culturally we don't seem willing to eat the food best suited to our dentition (you know, worms, grubs, little easy to chew animals).
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?
7th day Adventists are encouraged to follow a vegan diet, but only about 35% of them are (https://web.archive.org/web/20081202185642/http://www.adventist.org/world_church/official_meetings/2002annualcouncil/strategic-issues-report.pdf). Likewise, the traditional Okinawan diet includes small amounts of fish and pork on a regular basis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet). 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.
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.
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 (https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/when-innovation-technology-fail-us.html) and spoke about it on my podcast (http://joshuaspodek.com/technology-wont-solve-environmental).
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 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/article-if-the-point-of-capitalism-is-to-escape-capitalism/msg2172326/#msg2172326).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
When people insist on living places where nothing grows, they have to ship in the nutrition one way or another.
I think in a few decades we will look at non-vegan diets the way we currently look at smoking
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 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-whaling1/eat-whale-and-save-the-planet-norwegian-lobby-idUSEIC37493020080303?sp=true)" which noted the following:QuoteThe 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 (https://www.meatlessmonday.com/) things would shift a lot more than people might think.
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.
Inertia? Movements need a leader!
why are we not putting our money and our skills where our mouths are? I would work for this in a heartbeat.
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
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.
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.
@SisterX, I would pay into that sort of thing! But I'm not exactly the usual laser-focused FIRE type either.
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 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.
Now just find a green way to cross the atlantic..
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.
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.
Now just find a green way to cross the atlantic..
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Container_Ship.jpg)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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.
And after all, look at Canada for an example of a bunch of individuals who are willing to make the same sacrifice.
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.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.
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?
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".
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?
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.
"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.
This is the "logic" that everyone everywhere uses that is pushing us above a few degrees Celsius warming and filling the oceans with plastic.
Different people just draw different lines for where "living my life" stops and wastefulness begins. Are you still breathing?
"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 (https://timeforchange.org/co2-emissions-shipping-goods)).
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.
Ships, on the other hand, can become carbon neutral tomorrow, by replacing* the engines with LNG/battery hybrid engines, running them on electricity close to shore, and biomethane on longer distances. Even if you choose the economic viable solution and use fossil methane, we are talking about a 25 % reduction in CO2-e, and near elimination of other types of pollution (sulphur, NOx, etc). We are trying to get a paradigm shift here, not only small changes. And to move things in the right direction, we have to not only divest from the wrong solutions, but support the right ones. Electric cars have a substantial carbon footprint from the production of batteries and electricity. But by moving the emission source from thousands of cars, to a few power plants, mines and factories, we make it much more likely that we will be able to solve the problem. Even if the solutions ends up being CCS.
Just saw this article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-best-technology-for-fighting-climate-change-isnt-a-technology/
It was particularly interesting given that I live in an agricultural area where woodlots are being cut down to provide more fields for corn and soy. We are also having more permanent pastures (also carbon sequesters) plowed for crops.
This past year I planted 2 catalpa trees, 1 pear tree, 3 hazelnut bushes and a black currant bush. I have more baby trees and bushes in pots ready for next spring. In previous years I have planted 7 evergreens (pine and spruce trees), 6 maples, 2 cherries, and about 80 cedars (hedge). I can really see the difference these plantings have made, my microclimate is more temperate, the birds are more numerous and in greater diversity, the fireflies are back.
For those of us with yards, planting trees is something we can do. For those of us who can't do our own planting, we can encourage our municipalities and higher level governments to do more planting and to protect existing trees, whether they be urban trees, local woodlands or large forests.
Yet the international focus on fossil fuels has overshadowed the most powerful and cost-efficient carbon-capture technology the world has yet seen: forests. Recent scientific research confirms that forests and other “natural climate solutions” are absolutely essential in mitigating climate change, thanks to their carbon sequestering and storage capabilities. In fact, natural climate solutions can help us achieve 37 percent of our climate target, even though they currently receive only 2.5 percent of public climate financing.
We calculate the carbon sequestration potential of grasslands and pasturelands that can be reverted to native forests as 265 GtC on 1.96E+7 km2 of land area, just 41% of the total area of such lands on Earth. The grasslands and pasturelands are assumed to revert back to native forests which existed prior to any human intervention and these include tropical, temperate and boreal forests. The results are validated with above ground regrowth measurements. Since this carbon sequestration potential is greater than the 240 GtC of that has been added to the atmosphere since the industrial era began, it shows that such global lifestyle transitions have tremendous potential to mitigate and even reverse climate change.
cultured meat solves almost all of these problems. The land that was used to raise cattle can then be returned to forests.
cultured meat solves almost all of these problems. The land that was used to raise cattle can then be returned to forests.
Point of clarification: most of the land used for grazing cattle (at least in the USA) was never forests, but prairie grasslands that naturally produced forage anyway.
In a pre-human environment that forage was eaten by 20-30 million buffalo. Now it is eaten by some fraction of the 90 million cattle present in the USA today.
Re livestock and methane, the issue is not the cattle as such, it is what they are being fed - rich diets that are not taking advantage of their rumens. Instead they are being fed corn and soybeans that increase their methane production. Grass-fed cattle produce much less methane, and high-density managed grazing means way more carbon sequestration in the soil. There is a lot of research on this right now in both the US and Canada, and there are lots of academic web presentations. Grasslands in cool climate s normally have anything from 2 to 5 times as much root as shoot biomass, the more extreme ratio is in harsher climates. That is a lot of carbon. It also means the soil is less vulnerable to erosion. Every time a pasture or hayfield is plowed, all that carbon is exposed to the air and the rate of decomposition goes up - and of course that means soil carbon is now atmospheric carbon.
Of course the breeds of cattle that do well on an ecologically viable management program are not the same cattle that do well on CAFO, and management programs have to change drastically, so there is a lot of resistance to changing over.
I see it locally, our dairy cattle are grazing but not in an intensive management system, so the pasture is not improved as much as it could be. Our picturesque scenes of some beef cattle and some horses in a great big field mean that the pasture is not being managed well.
Also the grasslands could be made into forests, we need more forests.
If we leave the extreme point of “all cattle must die”, and look at how we can improve the emissions from cattle (and sheep), the main points are;
-keep the cows happy, and don’t push them to produce too much.
-choose the right breeds for your area, and breed them for less emissions rather than more production
-optimise the feed for low emissions. Grass fed has some good results, but I have also recently been told that increased fat content in the feed has shown to lower emissions, and interestingly, adding seaweed looks very promising.
-make more than one product from each animal. Milk cows that later get slaughtered for meat have less emissions per food unit than cattle that only produce meat.
-collect what methane you can (from manure/urine) and make biogas. Biogas can replace fossil fuels in vehicles, or you can make electricity, or burn it for heat. The more the cattle graze freely, the less biogas you can produce
Feeding cattle and sheep seaweed is old knowledge along the coast. Often, the animals would graze along the beach by their own choice, but it was also common to collect and dry seaweed for winter feed. It gives a very good flavor to mutton, if you get hold of Orkney sheep, they have kept some of it.
The best part of seaweed, is that growing it will reduce other types of pollution in the sea. I have seen suggestions to mandate growing seaweed around fish farms, to reduce the amount of nutrients they add to the water.
Even as I acknowledge some prairie can't be made into forest, also please acknowledge that much prairie land once was forest, and if we stop using that land for animal ag, and revert it back to forest, we will dramatically improve our predicament.
Even as I acknowledge some prairie can't be made into forest, also please acknowledge that much prairie land once was forest, and if we stop using that land for animal ag, and revert it back to forest, we will dramatically improve our predicament.
I'm afraid I still disagree with this. At least in north america, most of the forest land which has been converted into supporting animal agriculture has never been turned into prairie, it is some of the eastern edge of the corn belt, where forests were cut down to make fields for corn and soybeans which are in turn fed to animals, either as a supplement to grazing on grasslands or a complete alternative in high density feed lots. In fact, bringing a lot of the tallgrass prairies into agricultural production has allowed a lot of the native forests of North America to regrow. If you travel through New England you've find lots of old farm houses and stone walls around old fields that are covered with new growth forests. Once agriculture became established in the great plains farming that thin and rocky soil was no longer viable and forests that were cleared in the 1600s and 1700s began to regrow in the 1800s and 1900s as new england farm families gave up the family farms and either moved west or moved to the cities.
Look, if your argument is that we're currently producing dramatically more animal protein than is possible only from sustainable grazing on grasslands, and as a result, excess demand for meat is creating a lot of damage to our planet, I certainly do agree with that.
But I don't understand the apparent argument that grasslands (prairies) are bad, while forests are good. Both are natural ecosystems, both sequester carbon, both support diverse groups of plants and animals. And in environments which might sustain either either a grassland or a forest ecosystem, prairies appear to be better and longer term sequesters of carbon than forests.*
*Here's a popular press article https://phys.org/news/2018-07-grasslands-reliable-carbon-trees.html and the original scientific paper behind the findings in that article http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aacb39/meta
A powerful talk ends in anemic clapping. 23 minutes long. Watch the whole thing. He touches on terrestrial biomass of livestock vs humans vs wild.
https://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-12-11-19-30-abibimman-foundation?fbclid=IwAR3MHTVwMfCGknme_yecIECiKA9Pdga3-5TtyBACKs_MEZuko4IDlHRsFCA
So what do you think of that talk?
In other words, stop eating animals
In other words, stop eating animals
The problem is people won't do this which makes this whole debate meaningless. I am skeptical about the whole climate change industry. The data and projected disasters are far from clear cut verified facts. There is too much posturing with too little understanding of the topic. Our understanding is extremely poor. Lastly the things that we could do to fix the potential problem people aren't willing to do.
I think people on hear should read the book Sapiens. I've only just started but one thing is clear and that is that humans (us) remake the planet to suit us and we've always done this. We are ecological disasters on the whole to other species.
In other words, stop eating animals
The problem is people won't do this which makes this whole debate meaningless. I am skeptical about the whole climate change industry. The data and projected disasters are far from clear cut verified facts. There is too much posturing with too little understanding of the topic. Our understanding is extremely poor. Lastly the things that we could do to fix the potential problem people aren't willing to do.
I think people on hear should read the book Sapiens. I've only just started but one thing is clear and that is that humans (us) remake the planet to suit us and we've always done this. We are ecological disasters on the whole to other species.
It is very easy to effect change, if you have the political will, though. A gradual carbon tax - on all forms of carbon emission - and the revenue to be put into carbon capturing.
So, a higher price on beef. If you want to eat it, no problem - you'll just pay to plant trees or whatever in exchange.
In other words, stop eating animals
The problem is people won't do this which makes this whole debate meaningless. I am skeptical about the whole climate change industry. The data and projected disasters are far from clear cut verified facts. There is too much posturing with too little understanding of the topic. Our understanding is extremely poor. Lastly the things that we could do to fix the potential problem people aren't willing to do.
I think people on hear should read the book Sapiens. I've only just started but one thing is clear and that is that humans (us) remake the planet to suit us and we've always done this. We are ecological disasters on the whole to other species.
In other words, stop eating animals
The problem is people won't do this which makes this whole debate meaningless. I am skeptical about the whole climate change industry. The data and projected disasters are far from clear cut verified facts. There is too much posturing with too little understanding of the topic. Our understanding is extremely poor. Lastly the things that we could do to fix the potential problem people aren't willing to do.
I think people on hear should read the book Sapiens. I've only just started but one thing is clear and that is that humans (us) remake the planet to suit us and we've always done this. We are ecological disasters on the whole to other species.
It is very easy to effect change, if you have the political will, though. A gradual carbon tax - on all forms of carbon emission - and the revenue to be put into carbon capturing.
So, a higher price on beef. If you want to eat it, no problem - you'll just pay to plant trees or whatever in exchange.
Will a higher carbon tax affect CAFO and make more ecologically sane practices preferable? Or will it just get passed on as another cost?
In other words, stop eating animals
The problem is people won't do this which makes this whole debate meaningless. I am skeptical about the whole climate change industry. The data and projected disasters are far from clear cut verified facts. There is too much posturing with too little understanding of the topic. Our understanding is extremely poor. Lastly the things that we could do to fix the potential problem people aren't willing to do.
I think people on hear should read the book Sapiens. I've only just started but one thing is clear and that is that humans (us) remake the planet to suit us and we've always done this. We are ecological disasters on the whole to other species.
It is very easy to effect change, if you have the political will, though. A gradual carbon tax - on all forms of carbon emission - and the revenue to be put into carbon capturing.
So, a higher price on beef. If you want to eat it, no problem - you'll just pay to plant trees or whatever in exchange.
Will a higher carbon tax affect CAFO and make more ecologically sane practices preferable? Or will it just get passed on as another cost?
Well, the basic premise is to internalise costs, right? So that every producer pays for the currently-free things they consume in their production. So if CAFO can be made lower carbon, 'great' - from that one perspective.
The biggest point I think is to actually use the tax raised to close they cycle, to capture that carbon - to get it as close to neutral as possible, and better than neutral if not.
Strong, independent department dealing with how the carbon tax money is spent - funding reforestation, technological solutions (solar powered fuel-from-air?), just basically greasing wheels - making things that are currently 'unaffordable' because of capitalism and the lack of a price on environmental destruction, have a level playing field once all costs are factored in.
Yup. I really feel like... with the Brexit mess, with the British political parties just flailing and failing, it should be possible to start a cold, clear headed, results-driven party.
Spend research money and whatnot where it has the most impact. In fact, spend ALL money where it has the most impact (understanding, of course, that this is not an easy thing). Try and use the scientific process, try and separate lobbying/money and state just like church and state were separated.
We have to get better at this, because we're just going nowhere at the moment. Two steps forward, four or five back.
Well, there’s a sobering read:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/29/opinion/climate-change-global-warming-history.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
Happy New Year everyone.
Cultured meat is the solution here, if people won't stop eating it, produce it differently.It's grown in foetal bovine serum. That is, they must get a cow pregnant, abort its foetus, extract its blood, and use that to grow the cultured meat in - in a tank kept warm by electricity, etc.
Cultured meat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat)
The old question: are humans, collectively, more intelligent than bacteria on an agar plate (multiplication to limits -> population crash). Answer: doesn't fucking look like it.
Oh god, so so depressing.
Assuming other human beings behave like amoebas, while you yourself are above all that, is ordinary old hubris, which is what gives us violent tyrannies.
It also grossly insults the efforts of the people who worked and fought and sacrificed and suffered and died to bring us democracy, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, ended slavery and segregation, decriminalised homosexuality, invented and distributed sanitation and vaccines that have saved hundreds of millions of lives, enfranchised women, and so on.
Don't do that.
Getting this thread out if mothballs as the brains on it are best placed to help me... The letter below was published in my local newspaper. I feel I have to respond, but I don't have the eloquence / right terms. I just started reading the Merchants of Doubt which would help me but I don't have time to finish it before the deadline for letters.From the letter, this is the key part.
What would you say in response. I want to say something about how there is no debate, climate change is real and man made and then explain how science works (about evidence and peer review) and also how dishonourable groups have latched onto normal scientific doubt and exploited that.
"Is the increase of temperature man-inducted? This is the argument."
"What is needed is a formal Q&A between reputable scientists who hold appropriate degrees on the subject for and against to properly air the argument."
Also, the author says that pollution is a separate issue (it's not) that can be solved, but measures to prevent pollution are also blocked. Think of the rollback of federal vehicle emissions standards by good ol' 45. Rolling back the clean power plan. Putting in more bike lanes and making biking safer so that people don't "have" to drive. Better public transportation. But no, those are all things that people who don't "believe" in climate change are also against.
This is not someone who wants to have an intellectually honest debate, and it's likely not worth replying to.
Just a little update: Thanks to this thread, I've taken some major train trips and loved it! Managed to ride the entire line of the Coast Starlight in two separate business trips.
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. :(
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.
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.
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.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.
Do you mind saying where you live, or what general part of the country?
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.
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.”
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.
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...?
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...?
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)
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...?
It doesn't matter if population is a problem or not, because short of nuclear genocide there's nothing anyone can do about population today. Whereas you can do something about consumption. Today.
That's why people focus on population. So they've an excuse not to reduce their consumption.
I'm interested in what we can today. We've spent the last 30 years talking about what we could do tomorrow, and it's got us nowhere.
Population is easy to control. Release some weaponized anthrax, problem solved. It's more difficult to control in ethical ways. :P
But actually there is lots we can do about population. Women with more education and more personal power (I.e. access to contraception and abortions) have fewer children and have them later. So people have been doing something, just not as much as is needed.I said: nothing we can do about population today. The education and empowerment of women - something never advocated by ZPG types, since they tend to be high-consumption middle-aged and older males - takes a generation, 20-30 years to have a significant effect. And then it just levels off population, it doesn't shrink it.
But actually there is lots we can do about population. Women with more education and more personal power (I.e. access to contraception and abortions) have fewer children and have them later. So people have been doing something, just not as much as is needed.I said: nothing we can do about population today. The education and empowerment of women - something never advocated by ZPG types, since they tend to be high-consumption middle-aged and older males - takes a generation, 20-30 years to have a significant effect. And then it just levels off population, it doesn't shrink it.
Whereas we can shrink our consumption today.
Now, the education and empowerment of women can and should happen at the same time, because whatever it does or doesn't do to pollution etc, it's the right thing to do. But this doesn't give us a pass to keep on with our happy motoring and producing vast quantities of rubbish.
The one child policy was enacted in 1979 and Chinese population will peak in a few years, around 2023. Enacting a one child policy today, would the worldwide population peak 40 years later? Around 2060?But actually there is lots we can do about population. Women with more education and more personal power (I.e. access to contraception and abortions) have fewer children and have them later. So people have been doing something, just not as much as is needed.I said: nothing we can do about population today. The education and empowerment of women - something never advocated by ZPG types, since they tend to be high-consumption middle-aged and older males - takes a generation, 20-30 years to have a significant effect. And then it just levels off population, it doesn't shrink it.
Whereas we can shrink our consumption today.
Now, the education and empowerment of women can and should happen at the same time, because whatever it does or doesn't do to pollution etc, it's the right thing to do. But this doesn't give us a pass to keep on with our happy motoring and producing vast quantities of rubbish.
You kind of missed my point. If we had taken ZPG seriously back in the 70s, what would global
Population be today? China obviously did. I did. And it isn't just number of children, it is parental age. Population grows faster if parents are young, i.e. a short generation time. Any population ecology textbook can explain this.
So yes we need to reduce consumption, but we also need to do things which encourage low reproductive rates. Having 6 or 8 or 15 children makes perfect sense when child mortality rates are high and a couple may end up with 2 surviving children. Not so much sense having 3 or 4 or 5 children when they all survive to adulthood. Our biology and our technology are not working well together at this time.
You kind of missed my point. If we had taken ZPG seriously back in the 70s, what would global"New data on carbon shows that China's emissions per head of population have surpassed the EU for the first time."
Population be today? China obviously did.
You kind of missed my point. If we had taken ZPG seriously back in the 70s, what would global"New data on carbon shows that China's emissions per head of population have surpassed the EU for the first time."
Population be today? China obviously did.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194 (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194)
Yeah, okay. That worked.
"While the per capita average for the world as a whole is 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide, China is now producing 7.2 tonnes per person, to the EU's 6.8 tonnes. The US is still far ahead on 16.5 tonnes per person."
For reference, Australia and Canada are at about 20 tonnes per person. Low population, high per person consumption countries have a lot of people who say, "well, obviously high population is the problem, which is to say: really, it's not my problem."
Note: sustainable emissions are about 1 tonne per person.
Happy motoring!
The conservatives in Ontario are currently led by a man who doesn't believe in climate change, and has a mandate to reduce public transit funding and increase ease of personal automobile use. He has decreed that our city cannot tax gasoline to pay for transit. He has refused to participate in our countries carbon pricing plan.
It's hard to get ahead on the environment when half of the people running the country are telling folks that there's no reason to conserve, and making it cheaper/easier to waste resources.
I'm an American, and I would lurk the hell out of a Canadian politics thread! I'm always embarrassed by the asymmetry of how much my colleagues know about politics in the US versus what I know about politics in their country, and I do actually make an effort! And because we're neighbors, I feel like Canada is either mythologized or demonized by Americans depending on their political preferences -- a more nuanced view would benefit everyone.
We're sorta America lite. Same language, similar culture . . . but typically a bit less extreme on things. Also we pronounce 'about' correctly. :P
And "buoy"? Please tell me you pronounce that correctly too.I'm an American, and I would lurk the hell out of a Canadian politics thread! I'm always embarrassed by the asymmetry of how much my colleagues know about politics in the US versus what I know about politics in their country, and I do actually make an effort! And because we're neighbors, I feel like Canada is either mythologized or demonized by Americans depending on their political preferences -- a more nuanced view would benefit everyone.
We're sorta America lite. Same language, similar culture . . . but typically a bit less extreme on things. Also we pronounce 'about' correctly. :P
And "buoy"? Please tell me you pronounce that correctly too.I'm an American, and I would lurk the hell out of a Canadian politics thread! I'm always embarrassed by the asymmetry of how much my colleagues know about politics in the US versus what I know about politics in their country, and I do actually make an effort! And because we're neighbors, I feel like Canada is either mythologized or demonized by Americans depending on their political preferences -- a more nuanced view would benefit everyone.
We're sorta America lite. Same language, similar culture . . . but typically a bit less extreme on things. Also we pronounce 'about' correctly. :P
ETA And "route".
We sound a bit like people from upper New York State, who of course listened to CBC radio.
And "buoy"? Please tell me you pronounce that correctly too.I'm an American, and I would lurk the hell out of a Canadian politics thread! I'm always embarrassed by the asymmetry of how much my colleagues know about politics in the US versus what I know about politics in their country, and I do actually make an effort! And because we're neighbors, I feel like Canada is either mythologized or demonized by Americans depending on their political preferences -- a more nuanced view would benefit everyone.
We're sorta America lite. Same language, similar culture . . . but typically a bit less extreme on things. Also we pronounce 'about' correctly. :P
ETA And "route".