Page 20 of 27 FirstFirst ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... LastLast
Results 476 to 500 of 651
  1. #476
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by total_immortal View Post
    Thanks for sharing, I had not seen those edits and found them fairly insightful. I appreciated how he ended the second episode speaking to the fact that our individual actions won't make much of a difference but that is the only thing we, as individuals, can do. Recycle, be mindful of your purchases and travel, use renewable energy (if possible), and vote for politicians who will work to make the top-down change happen.
    Yeah, actually ended up rewatching those after I posted that link instead of actually doing work and was also struck by his comments at the end of the second...guess I'd missed those the first time around and honestly find that a refreshingly honest perspective as a skier / climate conscious person.

  2. #477
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    A LSD Steakhouse somewhere in the Wasatch
    Posts
    10,833
    you mean like cant afford a pack of disposable razors for me boats
    blisters on my fingers human powered suffering?


    or needing to eat poopfish cockroach casserole mad max thunderdomes suffering?
    "When the child was a child it waited patiently for the first snow and it still does"- Van "The Man" Morrison
    "I find I have already had my reward, in the doing of the thing" - Buzz Holmstrom
    "THIS IS WHAT WE DO"-AML -
    ski on in eternal peace

  3. #478
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirshredalot View Post
    It depends on what you mean by people suffering. Paying more for gas and dedicating resources to building infrastructure? Sure!

    Does it mean that you can't have GDP growth and continue to lift people out of poverty? Not at all! It's entirely possible to decouple GDP growth from emissions growth.
    The thing I was getting at is that isolating the US is all well & good but a climate change plan needs to be holistic. The easy part is reinforcing the trend of renewable and NatGas in the developed economies. That's the low-hanging fruit (though emission reductions are hurt by hyperconsumption of people like pro skiers). And it can coexist alongside growth.

    The problem is when you start talking about fossil fuel intensity of economic activity in areas where populations are actively being lifted out of poverty. This subsection covers what I think is around half of the global population, if not more. SE Asia, India/Pakistan, Africa, South & Central America. The ethical & responsible route is to try & shift the burden towards tech that's both in existence & economical (think natgas, subsidized solar, and I'm not really sure what else). Even with that you're looking at near term emissions going up in those countries alongside economic wellbeing. The two are still married at the hip when it comes to areas with high population densities & lower levels of infrastructure development & capital access.

    More broadly, I have two points of contention with the environmentalists - both are brought up in an effort to refine the argument more so than counter it. First is the consistency & coherence of the message and actions, which is covered thoroughly in this thread. Second is the observation of basic tenets of humanism and respecting the rights of others in areas with less capital to improve their condition. More should be done imo to investigate and understand the nuance involved in balancing developing world interests with those of the mature economies.

  4. #479
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    The thing I was getting at is that isolating the US is all well & good but a climate change plan needs to be holistic. The easy part is reinforcing the trend of renewable and NatGas in the developed economies. That's the low-hanging fruit (though emission reductions are hurt by hyperconsumption of people like pro skiers). And it can coexist alongside growth.

    The problem is when you start talking about fossil fuel intensity of economic activity in areas where populations are actively being lifted out of poverty. This subsection covers what I think is around half of the global population, if not more. SE Asia, India/Pakistan, Africa, South & Central America. The ethical & responsible route is to try & shift the burden towards tech that's both in existence & economical (think natgas, subsidized solar, and I'm not really sure what else). Even with that you're looking at near term emissions going up in those countries alongside economic wellbeing. The two are still married at the hip when it comes to areas with high population densities & lower levels of infrastructure development & capital access.
    This isn't necessarily true and it certainly doesn't have to be. At current construction costs, building out wind and solar are often the cheapest option. We need to nudge the developing world to make these choices in a few different ways.

    1. We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. This shit is fiscally profligate lunacy. And it's an easy fix.

    2. We need substantial infrastructure investment, both to retrofit our country and to encourage developing countries to make sustainable choices. The good news here is that renewables are already very cheap with existing technology.

    3. We need serious r and d in technologies to ultimately replace things like aviation fuels. And carbon recapture needs to be part of this r and d effort. So does manufacturing processes for steel and concrete. And ag techniques need to be part of this r and d effort, too. We spend basically 0 researching these technologies right now.

    None of this shit can be accomplished by donning hair shirts and bragging about how we are making individual changes. It will take significant legislation to accomplish any of the necessary change. POW is a lobbying organization, and I think they do a good job of keeping their eyes on the real objectives. It seems like they are doing their best to lean on politicians and twist arms.

    Shitting on people who participate in this lobbying effort because they use our existing, dirty energy infrastructure doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look stupid as fuck. And it let's everyone know that you're an asshole.

    EDIT: To be clear, bromontane is not an asshole.

    It's totally legit to be concerned that, say, Bangladesh and Nigeria are gonna get fucked over. But the solution is pretty simple. The US, Western Europe, China, and Japan can simply pass the hat and pay for a good chunk of the infrastructure in those countries. We have the money. We could've decarbonized much of the Bangladeshi economy for a fraction of what we've spent on our misadventures in Iraq and Syria. And to do so would probably be better for advancing US interests abroad.

  5. #480
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,117
    I’m glad everyone is really starting to look for solutions but I need to call a spade a spade.

    I think anyone pretending this won’t require individual sacrifice is fooling themselves. Yes, government action is going to be required but point of that action is to make it more expensive to use energy. This will impact everyone. The point is to make it more expensive to drive to work, smelt iron, mine coal, build roads, transport food across the country, fly to business meeting which could have been done over Skype. All of those things are both required and related to each other. You don’t just get to make it more expensive to mine and burn coal with it not impacting the cost of flying or driving. The energy economy is woven together. Also asking entire industries to change without being willing to make some similar sacrifices to your own way of life is hypocritical to the extreme. The US doesn’t produce more tons of carbon per person than any other country because our industries are inefficient. We produce over twice (~16 tons) the average because we all live a much more carbon expensive lifestyle. To say we need to make change as a society but not change your lifestyle is bullshit. To argue that any pro skier has made a significant impact with regards to raising awareness is also bullshit. Something like 5/6 Americans think human driven climate change is a significant issue. A pro skier’s audience has always been in the climate change belief camp. Sorry Cody, but neither CH not Jeremy Jones, not Chris Rubens is really concerting anyone. I do have a lot more respect for Chris Rubens for really showing a lot of us that it is possible to still go have a really awesome ski season while reducing our carbon footprint.

    Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices. It’s also going to require more significant sacrifices from lower income families. This is especially true in rural areas. Raising gas prices doesn’t have a ton of impact on most urban commuters or wealthy folks. I know $5/gal gas wouldn’t stop me from driving 200 mi a day to go skiing 30-40 times a year; I can afford it, just less money left over to eat out with. The same can not be said for many farming families or folks who live in rural areas with a much lower income and must drive 60+ mi a day for a lower margin job.

    Global impacts are also going to be required. Cutting US emissions in half would reduce global emissions by about 8%. I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s enough. China currently produces almost 2x the amount of carbon as the US, and it’s growing. The Pacific States, India and Africa are also rapidly increasing carbon pollution with much less efficient industries than the western world. Ignoring for a moment that a contraction in US greenhouse gas production will have negative economic impact in all those places, we are still going to have to ask them to give up something. China can no currently feed itself. Global transportation is a huge producer of green house gasses and we aren’t going to be able to just flip all the container ships to clean electrical power. Which part of China stops being fed? Is it fair for us to ask the developing world, who are just now starting to see improvements in quality of life, to put their progress on hold? Sorry Africa, your growth is too dirty, please stop the progress that is enabling you to fight malaria, HIV, and all the other shit on your dark content.

    I’m not saying it’s going to be impossible. It will be really really difficult however. On a national level I suspect it will take a similar level of dedicated effort as the space race in the 1960s, and potentially the level of effort it took to win WWII. Both of those required significant sacrifices on an individual level. Please stop pretending it’s going to be possible to do this without sacrifice. Realistically the ideas of people like Greta Thunburg would kill a few hundred million people through hunger, disease, and war. Of course the risk of not doing anything will likely kill a few billion people through dehydration, hunger, disease, and war.

  6. #481
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,159
    @sirspazalot:

    The reality is that peeps like Squaw & CG don't care about the environment. Or at least, they care more about their own image and lifestyle than the environment. It's less a function of scarcity of options than scarcity of principles, an ironic situation given their eagerness to thump along to the beat of pop-environmentalism. These people have world class instagram timelines alongside dollar store intellects.

    Much of the effort expended by virtuous people like you is done in a way that, curiously, enables the juxtaposition of virtuie against the inverse [here in strawman form] while turning a blind eye to any enforcement vis a vis personal conduct. Ones actual emissions are separated from the narrative in a desperate attempt to retain the image of constructive participation while being protected from the self-constructed social consequences of hyperconsumption.

    Anyway, you get a raging hard on anytime you feel in a position of power. Remember how batshit insane you got over bobby talking about cars & whatnot? Go for a walk.

  7. #482
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    171
    Interesting to see folks bring up Africa, SE Asia, India & Latin America as a reason to not take action because they are under the impression that these countries are bigger polluters. According to the World Bank, these countries have a much higher per capita consumption of renewable energy. And if you think about it, this makes sense. As these countries come out of poverty and foreign investment starts to build infrastructure it is often cheaper, easier, provides good optics, and sustainable to build out with solar power/renewable energy rather than coal power/NG, which is difficult and expensive to do in these countries.

    If anything, I think the argument that these folks will suffer the most from changing our energy system to a more sustainable model is off base. These countries have a head start because their development is occurring now with modern tools and technologies. Countries in Western Europe (excluding Scandinavia), Middle East, Russia, Canada, the U.S. are all behind the curve with these technologies and developed nations will probably be hit harder by this transition because we have entire sectors of our economies tied up in fossil fuels. This is opposed to a rural village in Africa where an NGO just installed solar panels and that village has electricity for the first time. As that village grows, they aren't going to switch from solar to coal, they're most likely to keep expanding solar because it is a relatively cheap and passive source of energy.

  8. #483
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    First is the consistency & coherence of the message and actions, which is covered thoroughly in this thread. Second is the observation of basic tenets of humanism and respecting the rights of others in areas with less capital to improve their condition. More should be done imo to investigate and understand the nuance involved in balancing developing world interests with those of the mature economies.
    On point 1 - you're expecting consistency of message from a movment that doesn't have/never will have a leadership structure? That's now how the things work.

    On point 2 - Literally any concessions towards developing nations can/will be used by opponents of clean energy/carbon reduction to sway American opinion. I swear I heard a Republican dumbass on NPR last week using this as a justification for bailing on Paris.

  9. #484
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,117
    Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for doing nothing. Just acknowledge it’s not gonna come without sacrifice and we can’t just ask ‘them’ to do something about it.

  10. #485
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    Ones actual emissions are separated from the narrative in a desperate attempt to retain the image of constructive participation while being protected from the self-constructed social consequences of hyperconsumption.
    Holy shit that's well said.

  11. #486
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,157
    Quote Originally Posted by total_immortal View Post
    Interesting to see folks bring up Africa, SE Asia, India & Latin America as a reason to not take action because they are under the impression that these countries are bigger polluters. According to the World Bank, these countries have a much higher per capita consumption of renewable energy. And if you think about it, this makes sense. As these countries come out of poverty and foreign investment starts to build infrastructure it is often cheaper, easier, provides good optics, and sustainable to build out with solar power/renewable energy rather than coal power/NG, which is difficult and expensive to do in these countries.

    If anything, I think the argument that these folks will suffer the most from changing our energy system to a more sustainable model is off base. These countries have a head start because their development is occurring now with modern tools and technologies. Countries in Western Europe (excluding Scandinavia), Middle East, Russia, Canada, the U.S. are all behind the curve with these technologies and developed nations will probably be hit harder by this transition because we have entire sectors of our economies tied up in fossil fuels. This is opposed to a rural village in Africa where an NGO just installed solar panels and that village has electricity for the first time. As that village grows, they aren't going to switch from solar to coal, they're most likely to keep expanding solar because it is a relatively cheap and passive source of energy.
    Excellent points. Thanks, I needed that on a Gloomy Friday.

    Quote Originally Posted by kathleenturneroverdrive View Post
    On point 1 - you're expecting consistency of message from a movment that doesn't have/never will have a leadership structure? That's now how the things work.
    Yep, as long as one side can make $$$ by whipping up fear of 16 year old advocates and the other has to depend on 16 year olds as their spokeperson then we are fucked. Inslee didn't stand a chance.

    On point 2 - Literally any concessions towards developing nations can/will be used by opponents of clean energy/carbon reduction to sway American opinion. I swear I heard a Republican dumbass on NPR last week using this as a justification for bailing on Paris.
    See point 1. Its all about $$$ and power.
    Ooof!

  12. #487
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    4,217

    Why all the Caroline Gleich hate?

    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I’m glad everyone is really starting to look for solutions but I need to call a spade a spade.

    I think anyone pretending this won’t require individual sacrifice is fooling themselves. Yes, government action is going to be required but point of that action is to make it more expensive to use energy. This will impact everyone. The point is to make it more expensive to drive to work, smelt iron, mine coal, build roads, transport food across the country, fly to business meeting which could have been done over Skype. All of those things are both required and related to each other. You don’t just get to make it more expensive to mine and burn coal with it not impacting the cost of flying or driving. The energy economy is woven together. Also asking entire industries to change without being willing to make some similar sacrifices to your own way of life is hypocritical to the extreme. The US doesn’t produce more tons of carbon per person than any other country because our industries are inefficient. We produce over twice (~16 tons) the average because we all live a much more carbon expensive lifestyle. To say we need to make change as a society but not change your lifestyle is bullshit. To argue that any pro skier has made a significant impact with regards to raising awareness is also bullshit. Something like 5/6 Americans think human driven climate change is a significant issue. A pro skier’s audience has always been in the climate change belief camp. Sorry Cody, but neither CH not Jeremy Jones, not Chris Rubens is really concerting anyone. I do have a lot more respect for Chris Rubens for really showing a lot of us that it is possible to still go have a really awesome ski season while reducing our carbon footprint.

    Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices. It’s also going to require more significant sacrifices from lower income families. This is especially true in rural areas. Raising gas prices doesn’t have a ton of impact on most urban commuters or wealthy folks. I know $5/gal gas wouldn’t stop me from driving 200 mi a day to go skiing 30-40 times a year; I can afford it, just less money left over to eat out with. The same can not be said for many farming families or folks who live in rural areas with a much lower income and must drive 60+ mi a day for a lower margin job.

    Global impacts are also going to be required. Cutting US emissions in half would reduce global emissions by about 8%. I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s enough. China currently produces almost 2x the amount of carbon as the US, and it’s growing. The Pacific States, India and Africa are also rapidly increasing carbon pollution with much less efficient industries than the western world. Ignoring for a moment that a contraction in US greenhouse gas production will have negative economic impact in all those places, we are still going to have to ask them to give up something. China can no currently feed itself. Global transportation is a huge producer of green house gasses and we aren’t going to be able to just flip all the container ships to clean electrical power. Which part of China stops being fed? Is it fair for us to ask the developing world, who are just now starting to see improvements in quality of life, to put their progress on hold? Sorry Africa, your growth is too dirty, please stop the progress that is enabling you to fight malaria, HIV, and all the other shit on your dark content.

    I’m not saying it’s going to be impossible. It will be really really difficult however. On a national level I suspect it will take a similar level of dedicated effort as the space race in the 1960s, and potentially the level of effort it took to win WWII. Both of those required significant sacrifices on an individual level. Please stop pretending it’s going to be possible to do this without sacrifice. Realistically the ideas of people like Greta Thunburg would kill a few hundred million people through hunger, disease, and war. Of course the risk of not doing anything will likely kill a few billion people through dehydration, hunger, disease, and war.
    QFT x1000



    You can go lobby congress for the next hundred years and not make an inch of progress unless the greater population is willing to sacrifice. Period.

    Humans are really good at figuring shit out when their backs are against the wall. And at the same time, humans are also really good at pushing shit off until the very last minute. If, tomorrow, we collectively made the decision to stop purchasing certain goods, services, and commodities, all hell would break loose in day to day life. It would be complete turmoil. But it would force the government’s hand in, at least, starting to think about what REAL change is going to look like and may serve as a catalyst for the development of certain systems that will be required for a lesser carbon/plastic enriched life.

    I simply cannot get behind this ‘movement’ of holding pretty finger painted signs up in Washington for 6 hours on a Friday, then returning to regular life for the rest of the month, year, whatever. That is all bullshit at the end of day. You want to know what a real environmental activism strike looks like? It involves every person in the country not driving their car for a week. Doesn’t matter if you can’t get to work, take Johnny to baseball practice, go food shopping... If we want to be taken seriously the country is going to have to be shut down for x amount of time and it is going to fucking suck for a lot of people.

    Where my pessimism shows through is people in today’s society are soft, have no idea what real suffering is like and have no interest in dipping their toes in that pool. The whole irony of this climate change activist movement debacle is we have the ability to change shit tomorrow, yet there aren’t enough people committed to doing so.

    Does this stance make me a looney tune, idk maybe?
    Last edited by east or bust; 10-04-2019 at 01:50 PM. Reason: grammar policing myself

  13. #488
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    2,750
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    I’m glad everyone is really starting to look for solutions but I need to call a spade a spade.

    I think anyone pretending this won’t require individual sacrifice is fooling themselves. Yes, government action is going to be required but point of that action is to make it more expensive to use energy. This will impact everyone. The point is to make it more expensive to drive to work, smelt iron, mine coal, build roads, transport food across the country, fly to business meeting which could have been done over Skype. All of those things are both required and related to each other. You don’t just get to make it more expensive to mine and burn coal with it not impacting the cost of flying or driving. The energy economy is woven together. Also asking entire industries to change without being willing to make some similar sacrifices to your own way of life is hypocritical to the extreme. The US doesn’t produce more tons of carbon per person than any other country because our industries are inefficient. We produce over twice (~16 tons) the average because we all live a much more carbon expensive lifestyle. To say we need to make change as a society but not change your lifestyle is bullshit. To argue that any pro skier has made a significant impact with regards to raising awareness is also bullshit. Something like 5/6 Americans think human driven climate change is a significant issue. A pro skier’s audience has always been in the climate change belief camp. Sorry Cody, but neither CH not Jeremy Jones, not Chris Rubens is really concerting anyone. I do have a lot more respect for Chris Rubens for really showing a lot of us that it is possible to still go have a really awesome ski season while reducing our carbon footprint.

    Everyone is going to have to make sacrifices. It’s also going to require more significant sacrifices from lower income families. This is especially true in rural areas. Raising gas prices doesn’t have a ton of impact on most urban commuters or wealthy folks. I know $5/gal gas wouldn’t stop me from driving 200 mi a day to go skiing 30-40 times a year; I can afford it, just less money left over to eat out with. The same can not be said for many farming families or folks who live in rural areas with a much lower income and must drive 60+ mi a day for a lower margin job.

    Global impacts are also going to be required. Cutting US emissions in half would reduce global emissions by about 8%. I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s enough. China currently produces almost 2x the amount of carbon as the US, and it’s growing. The Pacific States, India and Africa are also rapidly increasing carbon pollution with much less efficient industries than the western world. Ignoring for a moment that a contraction in US greenhouse gas production will have negative economic impact in all those places, we are still going to have to ask them to give up something. China can no currently feed itself. Global transportation is a huge producer of green house gasses and we aren’t going to be able to just flip all the container ships to clean electrical power. Which part of China stops being fed? Is it fair for us to ask the developing world, who are just now starting to see improvements in quality of life, to put their progress on hold? Sorry Africa, your growth is too dirty, please stop the progress that is enabling you to fight malaria, HIV, and all the other shit on your dark content.

    I’m not saying it’s going to be impossible. It will be really really difficult however. On a national level I suspect it will take a similar level of dedicated effort as the space race in the 1960s, and potentially the level of effort it took to win WWII. Both of those required significant sacrifices on an individual level. Please stop pretending it’s going to be possible to do this without sacrifice. Realistically the ideas of people like Greta Thunburg would kill a few hundred million people through hunger, disease, and war. Of course the risk of not doing anything will likely kill a few billion people through dehydration, hunger, disease, and war.
    Excellent post, truly captures that it's not a simple "government and evil energy companies" problem that a lot of people seem to view it as, and also the fact people are not willing to sacrifice comfort and wealth unless forced to. Same as you, 100% agree action is needed and that it must happen at a global scale, but really wish more would acknowledge that flipping switches today would cause global chaos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    @sirspazalot:

    The reality is that peeps like Squaw & CG don't care about the environment. Or at least, they care more about their own image and lifestyle than the environment. It's less a function of scarcity of options than scarcity of principles, an ironic situation given their eagerness to thump along to the beat of pop-environmentalism. These people have world class instagram timelines alongside dollar store intellects.

    Much of the effort expended by virtuous people like you is done in a way that, curiously, enables the juxtaposition of virtuie against the inverse [here in strawman form] while turning a blind eye to any enforcement vis a vis personal conduct. Ones actual emissions are separated from the narrative in a desperate attempt to retain the image of constructive participation while being protected from the self-constructed social consequences of hyperconsumption.
    Awesome. Just awesome. Job is literally to promote consumption of consumer goods in an affluent white person sport that is carbon intensive to participate in.

  14. #489
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Fresh Lake City
    Posts
    3,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik View Post
    I'll just say this, you guys are all concerned about optics and optics only.
    Its funny that someone who has made a living being a marketing monkey for the last 20 years doesn't realize the importance of optics.

    Look climate activists have taken the "do as I say not as I do" approach to climate change for years, and its gotten no where.

    "hey india and china, stop relying on coal power!" --developed word
    "hey but you built your empire on coal so go fuck yourself" -- India and China.

    "Hey Brasil, stop cutting down the amazon!" -- Developed world
    "Hey europe, where are all your trees? oh ya you cut them all down." -- Brasil

    "Hey governments, I'm incapable of making lifestyle changes myself, will you force us to?" -- POW activists
    "ummmm, you're a climate activist and you can walk the talk and you want me to force the rest of these people to make HUGE lifestyle changes??? are you fucking kidding me? sounds like a recipe for revolution" -- every government in the world.

    Basically the current approach to climate activism has failed for the last 30 years, so unless the approach changes or things need to get a lot worse before huge meaningful changes will take place.

    you can call the responses to this thread "internet elitism" but many valid points were brought up and maybe POW should listen because if they're failing to get a bunch of skiers who look up to their ambassadors on board then their message and approach to activism is failing.

  15. #490
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,405
    So to sum up the attitudes of the the last few pages.

    "individual sacrifices mean nothing without collective action."

    "Uh, you go first."
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  16. #491
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    171
    So what do you propose we do?

    The recent climate strike was supposed to be exactly what you are talking about, the only problem is we have these people who don't believe that climate change is occurring or that it will lead to a dangerous outcome, and other people who are too cynical/pessimistic to participate in said climate strike (myself included). Change is slow, I don't think we have the ability to "change shit tomorrow" when people's retirements/pensions, livelihoods, investments, etc. are all tied up in the fossil fuel industry. I'm not going to tell my retired parents to forego their pension because the money they live off of was derived from fossil fuels. So in my mind the change needs to be incremental. And the first increment should be raising awareness with mass protests and "pretty finger painted signs" to show the cynical/pessimists that there is a large movement that is willing to sacrifice to make changes.

    This whole thing will take a lot of time (which we don't have) to fix, and making sudden and drastic changes will likely lead to violence. There needs to be a long-term comprehensive plan, but if we all sit on our thumbs and think protests and marches are pointless there won't be any pressure on our politicians to make plans and regulations to ease ourselves off of oil.

  17. #492
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    6,594
    POW needs to make new trucker hats. Thatíll do it.

  18. #493
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    4,117
    The climate strike didn’t work because it wasn’t a strike, but a weak ass gathering with more in common with yuppie farmers markets than anything worth a column inch.. A bunch of rich white people taking a personal day from work and getting their kids excused from classes for a day doesn’t mean fuck all. As Mofro alluded to no one is willing to assume risk to see some change.

    A climate strike would be a ton of people risking their jobs by not going back to work until there is meaningful legislation passed or something like that. You want to see politicians react? Blow up the economy for a couple weeks with a general strike. It will take leadership and organization beyond the capacity of 16 year old girls and stoned pro athletes.. Good luck. Unfortunately it would also involve making a bunch of people who care about climate change uncomfortable, so now you know it won’t happen.

  19. #494
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    4,466
    brutah. spot on.

    instagram IS optics. a little bit of self-awareness from the visible POW types certainly would be nice.

  20. #495
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    6,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Star View Post
    brutah. spot on.

    instagram IS optics. a little bit of self-awareness from the visible POW types certainly would be nice.
    You donít think Sierra Q preaching about single use plastic while flying the world nonstop is good optics?

  21. #496
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,118
    I get everything everyone is saying here. Trust me, these talks happen across all levels of this debate. Sure, it's important to cut back where you can and I personally have done my share...I just don't spout about it very often. My meat consumption these days is nearly zero. Everyone of my flights is offset and last year alone I cut my flight distances in half. The project I'm currently doing mainly involves driving and camping. People that care are trying to do stuff and most people are holding those that voice an opinion to a higher standard than those that don't. Say something then get on a snowmobile and you're a piece of shit hypocrite. Fly in helis all season, eat beef three meals a day and drink oil for breakfast but never say anything or be an activist...oh you're cool. Anyways, what I'm saying is, how the fuck are you gonna convince 6 billion people to voluntarily reduce their own carbon footprint for the common good? Last time I checked, the world's economy is revolved around self-interest and we're pretty bad at this common-good thingy.

    So my point is that yeah, self-sacrifice is good, but until there are options for energy, transportation and consumption that are both economically advantageous for the individual and environmentally friendly, nothing is gonna happen...or it'll happen at a lot slower rate than probably necessary.

    As some said here, pro-skiers may just be preaching to the choir and 4/5 Americans think climate change is something to do deal with, but currently, seems like our government and a lot of the world's governments aren't accurately representing their constituents beliefs. Hence, the reason to lobby and try to incite change at the top. To intensify the pace of investment in green technology across all sectors.

    What I'm advocating for is, who gives a fuck what you, I or others do right now because my decision, or your decision, to drive a little less, go vegetarian, not have a kid, ain't gonna do fuck all in the grand scheme of things. It's spitting on a forest fire.

  22. #497
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    18,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik View Post
    Anyways, what I'm saying is, how the fuck are you gonna convince 6 billion people to voluntarily reduce their own carbon footprint for the common good? Last time I checked, the world's economy is revolved around self-interest and we're pretty bad at this common-good thingy.

    So my point is that yeah, self-sacrifice is good, but until there are options for energy, transportation and consumption that are both economically advantageous for the individual and environmentally friendly, nothing is gonna happen...or it'll happen at a lot slower rate than probably necessary.

    As some said here, pro-skiers may just be preaching to the choir and 4/5 Americans think climate change is something to do deal with, but currently, seems like our government and a lot of the world's governments aren't accurately representing their constituents beliefs. Hence, the reason to lobby and try to incite change at the top. To intensify the pace of investment in green technology across all sectors.

    What I'm advocating for is, who gives a fuck what you, I or others do right now because my decision, or your decision, to drive a little less, go vegetarian, not have a kid, ain't gonna do fuck all in the grand scheme of things. It's spitting on a forest fire.
    good points, especialy the point about the grand scheme of things

    Consider somewhere in India or Bangladesh some poor dude ( or millions of dudes? ) living in a cardboard box in an alley with his family of 6 picking over rags and garbage,

    Remember watching bacteria replicate in HS biology class? 6 billion people now just think of the world as one big petri dish and i think the vast majority of them could give a fuck

    I think people are convinced by money, ferinstance people are embracing electric cars cuz now it works and its cheaper, people will quit burning oil to get around when its cheaper to run electrics

    IME a cheaper lifestyle usually pollutes less
    Last edited by XXX-er; 10-05-2019 at 12:09 PM.
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  23. #498
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Agrestic
    Posts
    4,823
    Is there a thread for dick swinging about how little we fly because I think I might be in contention.

  24. #499
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    211
    The goverment can do alot!
    But wont be in favor of the people who vote for them! So if you are in power will you shoot your own leg?

    There are alot of good ideas....
    Turn off billboard illumination from 10pm to 5am!

  25. #500
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,003
    Diving into this thread at my own peril. I've posted my thoughts on athletes/activists who's advertised causes seem to lack honesty in a different CG thread (FFS guys, two CG threads, really?). Now that this has turned into a climate thread I'll say this:

    There are people on the same side of this issue arguing the merits and values of different actions. In some instances, the voices that condemn any individual action as "not good enough" meet or exceed the voices of those who are putting forth an honest effort to affect change. I have no problem with the folks that are honestly TRYING to make a difference, regardless of the impact. I do have a problem with the crowd that spends their energy and efforts pointing out each and every possible flaw in the actions of others, while sitting on the sidelines waiting for the perfect strategy to appear so they can finally act.

    On Athletes as activists:
    Quote Originally Posted by XavierD View Post
    To argue that any pro skier has made a significant impact with regards to raising awareness is also bullshit. Sorry Cody, but neither CH not Jeremy Jones, not Chris Rubens is really concerting anyone.
    I agree that "awareness" campaigns are not a high value proposition. That said, many athletes are doing more than touting awareness, and are giving exposure to actionable ideas. At least in my case, athlete activists have affected my actions in multiple ways:

    1. Listening to Greg Hill talk about reducing meat consumption to 2days/wk caused me to seriously consider changing my diet for the first time. Prior to this I'd convinced myself that I was a "serious" athlete and meals w/o meat were not meals. Now I'm pretty much on the GH program, sometimes more meat/week, sometimes less. I also I think that GH proving that an EV can be a viable option for an outdoor enthusiast will convert some naysayers.

    2. Reading Yvon Chouinard's book introduced me to the idea of more sustainable farming practices and the idea of soil as a carbon sink as a means to affect climate change. Agriculture Tech was not an industry I'd previously considered working in - it is now.

    3. Dakota Jones (runner) is the real deal, and among other inspiring pursuits has recently chosen to earn an engineering degree later in life with the goal of working to develop technologies that benefit the climate. I already have the degree, have worked in "greentech" my entire career, but DJ's decision to invest in an entirely new career path in an attempt to affect change has, in part, motivated me to double down on my existing path with a sharpened sense of commitment.

    Point being, I can only speak for myself, but I think high profile individuals that highlight climate actions can have an impact, and while the scope of that impact is debatable I have no problem with the intent as long as it's honest. No, none of these people "converted" me from climate denier to climate change babbler, but their actions have influenced mine no doubt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •