Submitted by blindboy on Wed, 07/12/2017 - 09:13
sorry to say i've stopped reading/hearing/looking at this stuff. i hope to visit the great barrier reef again before this summer's bleaching.
easter island .......
.........on a global scale. Go ahead, scare yourself. We need to.
Geez, I get scared just looking at this, so why do I need to get globally scared. What happened to the life of Brian.
I've just stopped banging my head against the stupidity wall.
I know it's a cop out but sadly IMO it's all out of our hands unless China, India come to the party it's all down hill from here.
Add to the fact China and India are developing countries with fast emerging middle classes that will consume and pollute ten times more per person as time goes on.
"friendly passive aggressive wolves in sheeps clothing. ;)"
I was freezing my arse off. 5/4s in the water, fluffy ugg boots, fires started early, white sun with very little heat, heat lost early when tending toward sunset. Pre-dawn feels like NHemi in winter.
china depends upon US and vice versa, both parties are critical. trump is a fuckhead
and elsewhere new problems arise....
Been a record dry summer so far here. But remember folks, our ancestors and environment have seen higher CO2 concentrations and temps over the last 300-400 thousand years. Its a concern, but I suggest taking Douglas Adams' advice and DON'T PANIC!
Here is a pretty picture:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_d...
McBain, as far as I can work out, peak CO2 in that link is 300 ppm - we've just passed 400 ppm.
The earth hasn't seen CO2 at that level for millions of years.
"Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today."
Yep, my mistake. Maybe panic a little. Another picture.
Although, I would argue, its not so much the concentration level that is the problem, rather the rate of change. These kind of rates of change have been seen, but not since the PETM.
"The previous extreme global warm-up happened 56 million years ago, when Pangaea was splitting into separate continents. It is suspected that huge amounts of carbon were released into the atmosphere and oceans in the form of carbon dioxide and methane.
The globe warmed 5 to 9°C (9 to 16°F).
Most ecosystems were able to adapt — tropical mammals migrated to North America and Europe, and sea life swam poleward to cool down.
But the rate of warming during the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) pales in comparison to what we're now experiencing.
Today, global temperature could be warming at a rate that is too fast for ecosystems to adapt."
Yep it's mildly concerning...
yep, and as mammals, you can assume humans will migrate too. so basically africans (as the poorest nations) are going to split.
it'll only be a cool several billion people migrating around the globe randomly. nothing to worry about.
Piece o' piss Happy.
ancient bacteria stored within frozen woolly mammoths beneath the ice. yah.
forget bird-flu face masks.....
If by any chance the idea of personal responsibility ever crosses your mind -
Heres some perspective:
"In terms of net gain (births minus deaths), we are adding over 200,000 people to this planet every day, or 140 people every minute . That equals over 70 million more people every year"
(three times the population of Australia added to the mix even year)
Yeah sure we need to look at reducing emissions etc, but until governments actually start taking a two pronged attack and aim for negative population growth, we are screwed.
But it won't happen because population growth fuels economies and everything is about money.
So sorry to be pessimistic but basically we are screwed no mater what.
And now this...
Larsen C: Giant iceberg breaks away from ice shelf in Antarctica
Blowie, that Guardian article was very basic but that notion of personal responsibility is an excellent one and can be applied, if so willing, to every aspect of daily life. Its amazing what can be done with that idea.
Everyone struggles with the reality of it in one aspect of their lives or another , no doubt. But it's worth striving for.
I'm no saint.
I'm not always right either.
Once I thought I was wrong. Turns out I wasn't *. Everyone's fallible .
* Believe it or not , this was actually intended to be funny ( funnyish ).
Totally agreed with good ole uncle whitey, lol, herc is a effin legend, listen or hear , upto you Brus
Good post Adam
Totally agreed with good ole uncle whitey, lol, herc is a effin legend, listen or hear
How are the people that inhabit there?
I seem to remember going down this track before but I think putting responsibility on the individual is just government and business evading responsibility. By all means be responsible but don't expect it to make any significant difference. The only effective way to limit the consequences of climate change is for the type of large scale changes that can only be implemented by governments and corporations. So yes, turn off the lights, fly less, drive a hybrid, whatever. Just don't forget to vote green, march in protest and continue hassling your elected representatives.
BB - I reckon that in this day and age of an unrepresentative democracy ruled by corporations and their lobby groups that the only way that people will affect change is through the power of mass consumer opinion controlling those corporations through affecting their bottom line by purchasing or not purchasing their goods and services.
Its the new democracy !
Consumers - individuals - realise their power to control the businesses that control the government . It's already happening with politically driven boycotts of certain companies .
Either way it's the power of the individual that counts.
Business and governments reflect us , not vice versa.
So if you and everyone else reduces consumption and compels those business to act accordingly by boycotting products contrary to environmental good health then we can't lose.
You're right , it is the same debate as last time.
You were wrong then too.
Think you might be overlooking the power of advertising there Blowin.
...and the power of the media who are owned by said corporations.
All true revolutions arise from the ground up.
And every revolution has had an oppressive power to overcome.
Sounds very melodramatic I know , but in a land where the Prime Minister himself stated that climate change is the greatest threat to mankind- and a decade later fuck all follow up of any real measure - wouldn't you think ts time to start an alternative approach ?
All the government can do is force us to do the right thing anyway. You wouldn't think it would be too hard to do it voluntarily.
Personally , I wouldn't trust the government with a bar of shit , yet here we are looking to them for guardianship of the planet . Classic.
Example A: The tobacco industry.
Never mind the guardianship of the planet, how about guarding the health of your own body? You think that would be more pressing, wouldn't you? Yet due to the allure of profit, the power of media, and the will of lobby groups many millions of people smoked themselves to death. That's completely irrational behaviour. You simply can't appeal to people 'commonsense' to protect the planet when a great many can't even protect themselves.
Nothing will happen without government intervention.
Example B (of many) is the Mining Tax to show how media manufactures consent from the populace, but you already know how that works.
One thing I am understating is people's self interest .
Do they actually care more about the environment or about Masterchef , a holiday away or their new deck extension ?
Why expect the government to care if nobody else is willing to replace words with actions ?
I'm not as guilty as some , but I'm a lot more guilty than others . None of it improves the environment.
But what was it that created the desire in the government for change on the tobacco issue ?
They were making a sweet load of cash from that particular industry until cultural change amongst the population forced them to change tact.
I agree with you on the power of advertising , but the cultural momentum is already there. It's not the uphill battle that was fighting the cultural entrenchment of tobacco decades ago.
Actually , when I consider modern lifestyles , maybe opposition to the necessary changes are that entrenched . Maybe moreso .
Fucked if I can genuinly contemplate not travelling for waves if the detrimental environmental consequences of travel can't be seriously arrested.
Blowin what caused governments to change their policies was the evidence that cigarette taxes did not cover the additional cost of smoking to the health system and never could under any realistic price increases.
Real and wholesale change can come from government action, but right now government is mostly captive to powerful vested interest groups and the (commercial) media. Governments change when its in their political interest and that's where people power can force change.
In Australia people taking up solar panels is forcing government change because there are so many panels now its disrupting the market. That rate of solar panel take up coupled with the steady reduction in domestic power use was, in part, also responsible for the Hazelwood power station closing here in Victoria earlier this year. Its highly likely no new coal fired power stations will ever be built here in AU. So "people power" can and does make a difference.
Another example of governments being forced to change is gay rights/marriage pretty much everywhere except here in Abbottland.
While there are many many macro actions that could halt the harm to the planet now in this transition period between the old and the new its important for individuals and grass roots organisations to place as much pressure on government as possible.
It sounds corny but someone once said if you want to change the world first change yourself.
Government is a follower. Not always . Depending upon the degree of passion possessed by the people .
the ability for the individual to make decision depends upon his/her knowledge. perfect knowledge = perfect decisions. very few people, in fact no-one has this. global market/connectivity makes it near impossible. my previous link indicated that china was investing heavily in renewables. we all know that. and we all say good onya china. but then at the same time they invest heavily in coal in africa. all of a sudden im skeptical.
individual are primarily driven by what impacts themselves and their immediate surroundings (e.g. local envirionment / kids etc). CC is such a long term issue that impacts in any persons lifetimes are small. it then becomes an academic/philosophical matter about people/humans/the species. you can[t] ask individuals to manage that. we aren't talking about a revolution. no-ones lives are so impacted in their own lifetime to warrant revolution. it aint gonna happen quickly enough.
i dont believe we can rely on individuals to sort things out.
perhaps a more cynical look at it, but you could also argue that the governments sin tax on cigarettes was an attempt to fill lost revenue as it was already becoming less popular in the face of negative health associations.
happy I read a report the other day saying that China was investing half billion into renewables or something like that a few years back. The same report, however, also mentioned that they currently have 30 nuclear power stations with 20 more going in and currently half of all power in the country is provided by coal. So although they might lead the world in terms of dollars invested in renewable tech, a single nuclear station would cost between 1-2 billion $$$ each. So as a % they are still heavily reliant on nuclear and fossil fuel and this investment in renewables is but a drop in the ocean.
All action is dependent on willingness and ability.
Willingness and ability varies from individual to individual.
In the absence of oppressive government action on a large scale is possible if individuals are willing and act when and where its possible given their personal circumstances.
Didn't wish to sound harsh Blindboy.
On the issue of personal responsibility there is a growing body of research to suggest that the more emphasis that is put on this, the less likely people are to support government policy changes to combat climate change. Not sure why I should have been offended Blowin, but thanks anyway.
the free market on CC...
A spectacular piece of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Once you penetrate the jargon the argument makes not the slightest bit of sense. The problem with having your head stuck in the sand is it leaves your arse open to a kicking.
"I have increasingly become more of a sceptic on climate change," Mr Howard said.
That's John Winston Howard speaking today in support of Trump pulling out of the Paris accord.
Further proof that the Liberal Party and its current and former leadership / membership are not liberal at all but conservative.
And yesterday Craig Kelly, Liberal MP and chair of Turnbull's climate committee warned that people will die this winter because of renewables.
Now I will be putting my money and vote where it counts at the next election but in the face of such total and utter stupidity from our so-called elected representatives little wonder I get on and do my little things like recycling to save my head from exploding.
Dear Craig, well no wonder with the welfare policies imposed by you and the bunch of creeps currently passing for a government. If you read a newspaper you would know that people are already dying all over the world from the effects of climate change, including heat stress, catastrophic storms and famine, but what the fuck, they don't live in your electorate, let 'em die. The race to the bottom is on it's JWH by a length!
I always wonder about people dying from heat stress when it maxes out at a crazy 32 degree Celsius in the UK .
BB, you need to take the MPs comment in context. It is fair to say that without power or power cuts then people's lives are more at risk - hospitals, care homes, even home based systems, etc. add to this infrastructure failure, traffic systems, ...
What you are eluding to has yet to be proven.
Tony, I dispair. Whatever side of any debate you sit on surely reasoned, calm and factual debate is what everyone should aspire to. Then again when it comes to the climate debate all that flies straight out the window because one side is wanting to ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. Oh by the way the "honourable member" was directly linking the subsidies paid to renewables increasing people's power bills to the point where they were not turning on the heater and therefore somehow dying as a result. This on a day when a study was released showing it was gas prices increasing electricity costs (and you and I have previously discussed how successive governments on both sides have stuffed that up to the point we will be the biggest exporter of gas yet under "current" government policy we will never receive any taxation or royalties from it). I see the head of Santos is warning Talcum Malcolm today not to interfere with the current gas market arrangements .... you guess it, the old boogeyman of "sovereign risk" and ending up like "Argentina".
I should add, can you imagine the outrage and indignation of the Murdoch press if a Green or Labor member of parliament attacked one of the conservatives many scared cows in such an inaccurate and wildly imaginative way as Craig Kelly did yesterday?
Move along nothing to see here ...