Page 19 of 45 FirstFirst ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 475 of 1120
  1. #451
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik View Post
    . Get the people in charge to swap subsidizing fossil fuel energy and invest heavily in solar, wind and whatever other sustainable energy source they can get their hands on, then suddenly it's more expensive to rely on fossil fuels and cheaper for everyday Americans to switch to green energy. There has to be an economic incentive for people to go green. If there isn't, then everything will stay the same.
    Pretty much. investment in a new electric grid to handle "green" energy more efficiently, investment in more efficient capture of green energy, and a massive subsidization of products built to use green energy instead of oil/gas. Another very controversial thing to invest in would be oil pipelines- MUCH more efficient means of transporting oil and gas, and could be "easily" converted to transport water when the inevitable climate issues cause water shortages.

    Basically, people wont do what hurts their pocketbook, or their ability to keep up with the joneses... no matter how much planet and christian love thy neighbor bullshit they like spew. People either need to be forced to do the right thing, or paid to do it. Most would prefer being paid to do it.

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by plugboots View Post
    Microplastics come from a variety of sources, including from larger plastic debris that degrades into smaller and smaller pieces. In addition, microbeads, a type of microplastic, are very tiny pieces of manufactured polyethylene plastic that are added as exfoliants to health and beauty products, such as some cleansers and toothpastes. These tiny particles easily pass through water filtration systems and end up in the ocean and Great Lakes, posing a potential threat to aquatic life.
    And then there's this that I just saw yesterday:
    https://www.latimes.com/environment/...cs-ocean-study

    McKibben had a good piece in Time about what "solving" climate change might look like in 2050.
    https://time.com/5669022/climate-change-2050/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  3. #453
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Brohemia
    Posts
    2,322
    Quote Originally Posted by doebedoe View Post
    Minor historical difference to my knowledge:

    The New Deal didn't require stopping massive economic productivity across a wide swath of industries. I can't think of an analogue to stopping fossil fuel production or its many downstream economic impacts that happened during the New Deal.

    I agree with the general sentiment that it needs to be government led, incentivized switch. And that our current incentive systems are all jacked up.

    Pretending this isn't going to hurt many (and be a huge win for many many more!) during the transition is misguided IMHO. That doesn't mean don't do it. It just means, we've got to help those communities that are devistated by the economic loss of fossil fuel industries.
    Agree with everything here. But while the New Deal didn't stop a massive swath of industries (the Great Depression did that well enough) WWII definitely did. Did it hurt, I'm sure it did for some, but there was this massive enemy out there and people were willing to buckle down for it. Same will probably at some point happen with our climate. Lastly, I think your point can be said for the current status quo as well. If we continue this path, a lot of equatorial countries are going to be devastated and mass migrations to northern climates are going to bear the brunt of mass migrations. Current climate change models show the burdens unequally being shared by the poor. So in general, yeah we gotta do a lot to help the communities that will suffer from either change to a greener system or maintaining status quo.

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montucky
    Posts
    1,997
    Alkasquawlik, I appreciate you helping turn this dumpster fire of a thread into somewhat of a productive discussion.

    Several pages of this thread definitely helped me think through some of the questions posed by internet climate activism.

    It’s sad/interesting that we’re bagging on particular skiers in lieu of climate activism, but this thread started out MUCH differently than it has panned out. Thank god.

    My question would be: could we get the film companies to team up and make a movie with ski athletes directly addressing some of these climate issues?

    Like a Marvel Cinematic Universe of skiers coming together to discuss how to defeat Thanos.

    It would be cool to see different perspectives and lifestyles compared and contrasted. Hope I have given y’all a chuckle with that proposal!


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  5. #455
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERIOR View Post
    My question would be: could we get the film companies to team up and make a movie with ski athletes directly addressing some of these climate issues?
    Honestly I'm surprised that this hasn't been done yet. I think POW and it's affiliated athletes would gain a lot more credibility if they used their platforms to educate and lead by example. Maybe instead of jet-setting around the world chasing the best conditions, produce a film that shows you can have an epic adventure and good skiing within an hour's drive of Denver, SLC, Reno, Vancouver, etc. etc. I imagine something similar to Dash Long's new video, only with an education component.

  6. #456
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by total_immortal View Post
    Honestly I'm surprised that this hasn't been done yet. I think POW and it's affiliated athletes would gain a lot more credibility if they used their platforms to educate and lead by example. Maybe instead of jet-setting around the world chasing the best conditions, produce a film that shows you can have an epic adventure and good skiing within an hour's drive of Denver, SLC, Reno, Vancouver, etc. etc. I imagine something similar to Dash Long's new video, only with an education component.
    https://youtu.be/gDIziRAYlTg

    Schirmer is kind of a boss. He's got some great interviews on podcasts too. Super smart, thoughtful guy and a hell of an editor and skier. Definitely an athlete I respect in this regard.

  7. #457
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gaperville, CO
    Posts
    5,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik View Post
    Agree with everything here. But while the New Deal didn't stop a massive swath of industries (the Great Depression did that well enough) WWII definitely did. Did it hurt, I'm sure it did for some, but there was this massive enemy out there and people were willing to buckle down for it. Same will probably at some point happen with our climate. Lastly, I think your point can be said for the current status quo as well. If we continue this path, a lot of equatorial countries are going to be devastated and mass migrations to northern climates are going to bear the brunt of mass migrations. Current climate change models show the burdens unequally being shared by the poor. So in general, yeah we gotta do a lot to help the communities that will suffer from either change to a greener system or maintaining status quo.
    Yep yep, same page. Maintaining the status quo has and will continue to fuck huge amounts of the worlds populations. Those populations aren't the ones that have the power to change our current course.

    If climate change was already fucking up the day to day lives of conservative America -- it'd be an easier political puzzle to solve.

  8. #458
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a genuine ol' fashioned authentic steam powered aereoplane
    Posts
    16,776
    We're doing it all wrong. If you meditate hard enough for long enough your pants just stay up at your waist perfectly all the time, duh.

  9. #459
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,015
    Look how WWII and the New Deal radically transformed the American landscape and economy. It wasn't from telling people to cut back or reduce. It was from a massive top down investment in infrastructure.
    Yes, as well as an extremely painful and worldwide disruption of of damn near every country.

    We were lucky that the planet was still large enough to prevent that from happening to our Homeland so we came out on the very top of the heap.

    What it will take to create that massive top down investment will probably need to be equally as painful and horrific unless you can get people to buy into the idea that moving away from Carbon Based energy is a tremendous opportunity for everyone to benefit.

    How do we do that? Beats the ever living fuck out of me.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  10. #460
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Truckee & Nor Cal
    Posts
    15,608
    So just catching up here... I'm wearing a cotton shirt, does that make me racist? ;-)

    But seriously, all of this going around and around is why many of us have repeatedly made the "drop in the bucket" argument. Individual change aka doing your part is great, but it doesn't mean shit until the bigger issues are solved.

  11. #461
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by LightRanger View Post
    I think the heli for wedding photos is a bad look. No question about that from me.

    I also understand that this is a collective action problem and by far the most effective thing one can do on a individual level to fix it is to work on the politics. For example, POW AF spent a fair amount of money against some of the biggest climate deniers in Congress last cycle. Townsend was knocking on doors for Jessica Morse in our district.

    In the long run, that kind of stuff is more effective than becoming an ascetic hermit and using rocks for tools.

    There's a lot of stuff posted on this forum on this topic that reminds me of this...

    Attachment 294610

    And this (the original)...

    Attachment 294611

    Maybe low key, but still definitely an element of it. Not saying POW is above critique, but some of the critiques have logical holes.
    Bump.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  12. #462
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by NWFlow View Post
    https://youtu.be/gDIziRAYlTg

    Schirmer is kind of a boss. He's got some great interviews on podcasts too. Super smart, thoughtful guy and a hell of an editor and skier. Definitely an athlete I respect in this regard.
    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.

  13. #463
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,871
    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 volunteer, canvass, donate to, and vote for politicians who will work to make the top-down change happen.
    Fixed to add and emphasize the most important things one can do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  14. #464
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    Calling employers to settle e-spew is not cool.



    It's much more difficult than the Western pop-environmentalists suggest. Cutting global emissions in 2020 means people suffering. I've yet to hear an instaface narci-vironmentalist address this paradox. Lots of evidence of them not even following their own code though.
    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.

  15. #465
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    817
    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.

  16. #466
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    A LSD Steakhouse somewhere in the Wasatch
    Posts
    13,234
    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
    "I have posted in here but haven't read it carefully with my trusty PoliAsshat antenna on."-DipshitDanno

  17. #467
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,256
    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.

  18. #468
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,118
    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.

  19. #469
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    555
    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.

  20. #470
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,486
    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.

  21. #471
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,118
    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.

  22. #472
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    817
    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.

  23. #473
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,015
    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.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

    "Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"

  24. #474
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    shadow of HS butte
    Posts
    6,379

    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 12:50 PM. Reason: grammar policing myself

  25. #475
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    3,261
    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.

Posting Permissions

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