Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate Change is so HARD (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Even among Climate Acceptiers, most Deny (18+ / 0-)

    how much we have to change our behavior to reduce consumption in order to avoid the worst affects of Climate Change. They think some shifts to renewable energy and some recycling will do it.

    Hello, Earth to humans...

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:10:18 PM PST

    •  Even something as simple... (14+ / 0-)

      ...as resource allocation is a mind breaker for Americans. With only 5% of the worlds population we consume over 20% percent of the worlds resources. If we were to have our fair share (of the terrifying consumption overshoot... separate rant, thank you) we'd all have to make do with about 75% percent less ... everything.

      Less food, less electricity, less fuel, less clothes, less STUFF.

      That's not gonna go on ANYONE'S campaign T-Shirt.

      What th' heck do I know, I work for a living...

      by SamuraiArtGuy on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:51:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Super consumerism is a major problem needing (5+ / 0-)

        to be addressed.  It will involve an altered view of what constitutes the good life and how wealth is defined. In WWII production was stopped on the production of cars and numerous things were rationed.  A massive shift to the production of non-polluting renewable energy products with a corresponding ceasing of producing anything that can be imagined that can be sold for a profit needs to occur.  That and much much more!  Good diary!

        If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

        by John Crapper on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 01:48:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This so vague as to be meaningless. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oceanview, Temmoku
        With only 5% of the worlds population we consume over 20% percent of the worlds resources.
        •  No it isnt. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          EthrDemon

          as is shown by the consequence:

          If we were to have our fair share ... we'd all have to make do with about 75% percent less ... everything.
          75% isnt a meaningless number. Whichever way you turn it, it is a huge chunk. It is such a large number that you can do all kinds of thought experiments with it.

          Like: make air fares 4 times as expensive (e. g. by tax), to decrease American´s air travel. Would we support that?

          Would we be prepared to tax carbon-to-energy use to such a level that simple economics would make US suppliers go solar/wind/nuclear to produce it, depressing US CO2 output to even roughly world average?

          Thats the challenge embodied by these per capita consumption comparisons. They lay the finger to where it hurts. No matter what and how we do it, consumption per capita has to come down - by a very large margin - either now by free will, or eventually by global ruin.

        •  You can hunt up (0+ / 0-)

          the WWFs most recent LIVING PLANET REPORT for a deluge of disturbing numbers.

          You can dive into an interactive footprint inforgraphic for the short version.

          wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/living_planet_report_graphics/footprint_interactive/

          But for a more complete read, download one of the full reports. The numbers are less vague, they're out there to be read and grasped.

          What th' heck do I know, I work for a living...

          by SamuraiArtGuy on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 02:09:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's fine. (0+ / 0-)

            But you are the writer, presumably trying to convince your readers, yet you want them to do the research to verify your supposed facts?

            What does "consume" mean? What portion of the alleged 20% is returned to the world in aid, exports, IMF loans, and so on and on.  Are we to suppose it's all big screen TVs in our living rooms or BMWs? Statistics. Meh.

            •  Not to be picky... (0+ / 0-)

              .. No .. wait... yes. Yes I am.

              Part of the whole point of diaries and eassys like this one is to raise consciousness and awareness, and to prompt discussion. I HAVE read the reports, and done the research to have a reasonable understanding of this subject, and other people ought to as well. The point is that the research has been done, summarized, and in this particular case (the Living Planet Reports) made into very accessible and understandable forms, you just have to bloody READ it.

              I could pile the article with mounds of factoids, but it would be too unwieldy and beyond the scope of this venue.

              So my impulse is to hold your feet to the fire for your own edification. My feeling is that it's worth peoples time to educate themselves about the issues. Look into them for yourself, invest a little time and don't believe media taking heads or political or industry spokespeople.

              But if you can't be bothered, or don't even have the human curiosity to see for yourself whether I am talking out of my hat, or if these things are something you should learn more about out of a reasonable self interest; then be content in whatever comfortable situation you may have carved for yourself. For as long as it lasts.

              Avoid coasts.

              But ultimately it still is your choice in the long run. Be at peace.

              What th' heck do I know, I work for a living...

              by SamuraiArtGuy on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:35:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  It's all about fire (4+ / 0-)

      To make a meaningful dent in the climate change problem, we need to snuff out at least 80% of the fires we currently use.  What is more, we are going to have to learn how to live with humanity's favorite invention in less than 15 years.

      Hard?  Most people haven't even begun to understand how massive such a change will be.  Or how expensive.  If we want to make the necessary conversion to a more fire-free economy, we must first wrest the economy away from the pirates who have seized control of all the important levers.

      Anyone besides me think that appointing Jack Lew to Treasury is not going to get us any closer to a more enlightened economy?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site