Oh god. Is he really going to talk about this?
Yeah.
And yeah, I already know the comments on this article are going to be a shit show. I know. Believe me, I know.
Climate change is one of those topics where neither the left nor the right can think rationally and where both sides lose their minds. As always, I will examine this issue from the objective viewpoint of someone who is neither left nor right and uses objectivity and logic to form options rather than emotion or political bias.
Though opinions certainly vary, the general right-wing viewpoint is that climate change is total bullshit, socialist-leaning scientists are mostly making it up, and even if it is true, it’s mostly due to completely natural processes that have nothing to do with human activity, therefore we have largely nothing to worry about.
The general left-wing viewpoint on this is that climate change is a catastrophic and immediate problem and we are, quite literally, all going to die, and the only way to solve it is if the United States passes a few laws, which will fix everything.
Like I said, neither side is being rational here. As usual.
My opinion on climate change is not whether or not it’s real, but what can or can’t be done about it in the real world.
Let’s get this out of the way first. I am no expert, but based on all the research I’ve done on this, I believe that A) global climate change is real, and B) a decent percentage of it is caused by human activity.
I don’t know the exact percentage that is due to humans, and neither do you, even if you’re a scientist. I just think that a “decent” percentage is our fault and the exact percentage is a topic I have no interest in discussing.
On that, the left is correct and the right is wrong. Now let’s get where the left is completely insane.
Global climate change can’t be seriously curtailed by passing laws. It will either be solved by technology (which I think is reasonably likely to occur) or it won’t ever get solved and we really are going to have some big problems down the road. But it will never get solved by politicians passing laws. Never. I shall explain.
The largest percentage of climate change is caused by the combination of Russia, China, and India, not the United States. This means that even if the left-wing completely conquered the USA from a political standpoint (which, by the way, will occur at some point in the next decade or two, if not sooner), and the left passed literally every climate change regulation they possibly wanted, global climate change would continue, and all the horrible catastrophes the left fears would still be on the table.
You would need not only the USA to radically (and I mean radically) change all of their environmental laws, but you would also need Russia, China, and India to do so as well.
I’ve got news for you. Russia, China, and India aren’t going to radically change shit in this area.
Oh sure, they’ll continue to make tweaks here and there in order to look good to the international political class. But the radical change needed to arrest global climate change? Not going to happen. Fantasize all you want, left-wingers. Pass all the laws you want in the USA. These three countries are just going to give you the finger and keep right on growing industrially like we did during the 1920s.
So what, then, is the political answer? Seriously, what’s the answer?
If your answer is something like “the United Nations or NATO will handle it,” then you’re an idiot. NATO is slowly going away with the rest of the Western world, and the United Nations is one of the most corrupt and incompetent organizations on the planet. If you seriously think the United Nations is going to get Russia, China, and India to stop polluting, you’re either stupid, or quite ignorant as to the UN’s track record.
So now what’s your answer?
Are you going to go to war against these countries in order to save the planet? The USA going to war against the other three most powerful nations in the world? Are you seriously going to start World War Three over this climate change stuff?
Of course you’re not.
And that’s my point. There is no political solution to global climate change.
As I’ve said on this blog before, you can solve regional environmental problems, like how Los Angeles cleaned up its air and water, something I completely support on a local level. (As a minarchist libertarian, I support the concept of local government, just not big government.) But Los Angeles has no control on how much garbage India sends into the atmosphere and never will.
The answer to global climate change, if there is one, will be with technology. Again, as I’ve said before, I think the odds are good that someone at some point will invent something that will either solve climate change or slow it way down to the point where it’s not a big deal.
Humans have a strong track record of doing this. When the world was about to “go dark” because we were running out of whale oil in 1800s, tech invented use of crude oil. Later, when there was an oil shortage in the 1970s and everyone was freaking out, we invented various fuel injection systems, greatly increased fuel economy, and solved the problem again. Instead of living in a hellscape caused by Y2K, computer nerds all over the planet (myself included) worked very hard to avert disaster, and we did.
What if someone doesn’t ever invent something to solve this problem? Because that’s certainly possible. Well, then yeah, we may all have a very serious problem at some point in the future. But that doesn’t mean a political solution exists. It still doesn’t. So you right-wingers can keep denying anything is wrong and you left-wingers can keep thinking that voting for certain American politicians will fix the world (ha!).
The best solution for you as an individual? Adopt an Alpha Male 2.0 lifestyle. Alpha 2.0s are location independent and can move and live anywhere. If water becomes a problem (not enough, causing droughts, or too much, causing sea levels to swallow up your house), you can just move, and do so whenever you want and before there’s a problem. Being Alpha 2.0 won’t solve climate change, but Alpha 2.0s will be the least negatively affected by this problem (other than the super rich) due to their mobile, independent, and de-compartmentalized lifestyle.
I’m coming to a town near you in 2019 to do the least expensive Alpha Male 2.0 seminar I’ve ever done. I’ll be in 18 different cities in the USA, Australia, Canada, and Europe. If you want to come to a low-cost seminar to learn how to improve your financial and woman life, click HERE and get your tickets! The next cities coming up are Dallas, Houston, and Brisbane!
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
Anchor
Posted at 09:47 am, 9th January 2019Regardless of the debate, any action that helps improve the environment and specifically reduces pollution in any form is a good thing.
Makeshift
Posted at 09:58 am, 9th January 2019Did you read the details of the Paris Climate Accord everyone was screaming about a while ago? We curb our emissions with incredibly punitive measures while subsidizing developing countries who continue to pollute so they can supposedly develop greener energy. To top this all off by the climate scientists own projections we would still fall short on necessary temperature reductions needed to avoid Very Bad Things and would have to rely on…. free market solutions by hoping technology develops far enough by then. Absolutely breathtaking.
It’s also hilarious to explain to leftists that the best way to fight climate change would be to stop mass immigration from third world countries, the ones with much lower energy output, to America, who has a much higher output that would only grow with new arrivals.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:14 am, 9th January 2019I completely agree. I love the outdoors and I hate pollution of any kind. I’m really excited about new green tech coming down the line too.
Yep. Stupid. And it won’t stop climate change even if we did everything in that Accord.
Alex Jones
Posted at 10:43 am, 9th January 2019@Anchor says
Caleb might agree, but I surely don’t. For example, banning automobiles in the United States would help improve the environment and reduce pollution, but is that a good thing? Every action comes with a set of costs and benefits, and whether it is worth doing depends on the balance of these things.
Making this kind of claim is exactly what politicians do — explain the benefits and pretend there are no costs. It is precisely this that got us in this mess in the first place.
For sure some laws that improve the environment and reduce pollution are good. But to say that anything that has that outcome is good is insane.
I do mostly agree with Caleb’s article. But I’d say it a bit differently. The worry is that our actions today will have severe consequences 100 years from now, so we need to act now. Can you imagine how silly it would be to imagine that people from 1900 are responsible to do things to fix our technology today? It is ridiculous. People and technology in 2100 will be so vastly more capable than us that it is like suggesting a baby should start investing in a 401k to provide for his parent’s retirement.
Moreover technological wealth expands exponentially because one technology builds on earlier ones. So the one thing we can do, (or out ancestors in 1900 could have done) is to increase our speed of innovation, not hobble it with massive, pointless government boondoggles.
Remember that a reduced annual growth of 2% over 100 years is the difference between the GDP of Mexico and the USA.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 01:35 pm, 9th January 2019My position has always been that if a city wants to ban automobiles, that’s perfectly fine, but if you do it on a state or country-wide basis, that’s insane.
Great point. Agree completely.
bluegreenguitar
Posted at 02:12 pm, 9th January 2019Lots of great ideas here. And I appreciate the balanced perspective.
Interesting point – maybe Brasil, too? (BRIC)
In terms of CO2 reduction, I think the current, most “straightforward”, “low-tech” approach would be utilize a lot more trees in a highly intelligent manner.
These are good examples of market demand creating the innovation. But what is the market(s) demand(s) that would fuel innovation to curtail global warming. Sure I would want to buy a heater that uses cheaper oil, an engine that is more fuel efficient, or use computer systems without massive bugs, But what does the consumer buy to reduce greenhouse gases/global warming on their block?
Probably true, I wouldn’t plan on it. But you never know..
If you don’t mind me asking – did you find a lot of stuff that was going to cause an issue?
I would rephrase to : “Can you imagine how silly it would be to imagine that people from 1900 are (partially) responsible for the negative and positive consequences of today?” Like most things (on a deeper level), this would be a very involved question.
But I do believe many people can forecast 30-50 years in the future for certain things, especially if they’re one of the top people in a certain field. For an environmental example, the scientists who did the nuclear tests in the South Pacific in the 30s probably could have easily figured out the consequences. I’m not judging their decision completely b/c I wasn’t there and I don’t know all the details. But it would seem pretty obvious.
Eric C Smith
Posted at 05:40 pm, 9th January 2019yea case studies between lefties and corporations etc. Nerds all day for the win.
Richard
Posted at 07:38 pm, 9th January 2019The cost of electricity generated by solar and wind is dropping like a rock. Pretty soon, the only way coal miners can stay in business is if the government massively subsidizes them (like Trump wants to do).
And we already have the technology to take carbon dioxide out of the air. It just isn’t cost-effective or scalable yet. But that will come.
BTW, China and Europe already are in the lead now when it comes to development of green technologies.
David
Posted at 12:36 am, 10th January 2019Great article and i cant believe how similar my argument was. 12 years ago i noticed all of my hometowns factories were leaving the country because of environmental complaints. Then I visited the countries where many of them went… polluted shitholes. If they stayed here, the factories would have compromised a bit on emissions and maybe we’d have the jobs.
I would do like China. Double down on capitalism, which always fuels technological breakthroughs, hoping today’s Rockefeller-like billionaire funds today’s Thomas Edison-like inventor and solves this.
Also, methane gas from cows is supposed to be a huge impact on c02, but i dont see any global accords about veganism being signed.
I read a book called Shrinking The Technosphere that made a strong argument we’ll be out of fossil fuels in 120 years and will return to living off the land. The earth will recover and we’ll finally have the patriarchy again!
Antekirtt
Posted at 03:34 am, 10th January 2019For a free market solution to climate change, watch this (there’s a part 2 as well but not as important:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0
For a VERY objective look, by a non-leftist (libertarian leaning from what I gather) – same guy in the video above – , on the science of climate change, just take your time with this playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Not only is it very well done, but it addresses virtually every argument – both from the deniers and the irrational doomers – I’ve ever heard. Potholer54 rocks.
Side note: if the real trajectory of climate change is set to be on the worse end of the spectrum of predictions, then my view is that we need a massive return to fission energy (yes yes yes, I know the objections) in order to get the emissions down fast. It’s vastly safer than the average joe thinks, much more readily scalable than ‘renewables’, and newer safer designs are coming right now (and no, fusion, though awesome, won’t arrive and get widespread enough in time for this). But it’s very unlikely to happen, in fact the opposite is happening in some countries and irrational, pseudoreligious gaïa worshipping Dark Greens are more or less winning.
Antekirtt
Posted at 07:06 am, 10th January 2019Most of the meat I eat is from poultry and fish. Even pound for pound, it contributes far less CO2 than red meat – that and, though I’m not a vegan, I classify poultry and most fish (and to a greater extent oyster or shrimp) as lesser sentience than, say, cows or pigs, so I have fewer qualms about eating them anyway. So whether at the CO2, ethics, or budget levels, chicken and turkey are win-win for me, and I am neither a treehugger nor a doomer, I just pragmatically juggle some ecological facts and like to have some general moral guidelines without being too eager to push them on others.
Grass fed beef should have much lesser impact – and even help fight desertification instead of contributing to soil depletion and wrecking agriculture sustainability – than corn fed beef. That’s why we’re supposed to be able to feed way more than the current population, and yet, due to inadequate methods, we end up seeing these figures about how we’re “consuming 1.5 planet per year”, which are kinda true while those methods are used, while we could actually ramp up total consumption at lower impact if we transitioned to newer farming methods.
Eric C Smith
Posted at 12:26 pm, 10th January 2019Exactly the issue when I started taking environmental studies courses and eventually dropped out.
Main case study was the alaskan pipeline cases or something related where there was debates over the law, or if the animal rights people let them drill in alaska, the government would pass a law that all cars had to have over 50 mpg.
Flashforward to now. Electric cars seem to be hitting the forefront anyways.
Richard
Posted at 04:33 pm, 10th January 20191. Methane isn’t seen as a big deal because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time while methane breaks down relatively quickly. However, in any case, we should either be getting meat from test tubes in a few years or vegetarian faux-meat will look and taste so much like real meat that people won’t be able to tell the difference. Much more humane that way, too.
2. If factory jobs are moving to environmental shitholes, why do you want the US to keep those jobs? You want to live in an environmental shithole?
3. How does “living off the land” lead automatically to patriarchy? In any case, why would you cheer for such a thing? Life when people really did live off the land was nastier, more brutish, and shorter than now, with more malnutrition, more violence, and in general a worse life compared to now.
Anon
Posted at 06:08 pm, 10th January 2019Because agriculture requires physical strength, of course.
joelsuf
Posted at 07:32 pm, 10th January 2019George Carlin pretty much annihilated all things climate change in his HBO special Jammin in New York. My favorite line in the monologue: “has anyone considered the arithmetic? The planet has been here 4.6 billion years. We’ve been here what, 100000? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. 200 years vs. 4.6 billion. And we have the conceit to think that we’re somehow a threat?”
That came from the same dude who was the Hippy Dippy Weatherman just 20 years prior. And who, earlier in that same HBO special, wrecked shop HARD on George HW Bush and his administration.
So when it comes to this kind of thing, even if we literally do nothing, nothing will happen. Trust me, the planet will outlive us. It already has several BILLION years on us.
joelsuf
Posted at 07:43 pm, 10th January 2019I think he was being sarcastic. But ehhh, living off the land would be kind of cool for a bit. But yeah life definitely sucked worse back then.
As far as bringing back patriarchal structures, that wouldn’t happen. What WOULD happen is martial law and really bad authoritarianism. Chicks have cracked the code in that they have finally realized that sex is power, and chicks can wield that kind of power really easily. It would be nothing for them to force men to do aaaaaalllllll the work and then accuse them of something if the dude disagrees or doesn’t do it fast enough or something.
And then because those kinds of societies usually just had one leader per village (which is authoritarianism) it is nothing for chicks to “prove” that she was assaulted because the guy who she put to work was “distracted” and that’s why the work “wasn’t done quick enough.”
“going back to the patriarchy” is a pipe dream. We’re gonna be dealing with an absolute matriarchy for awhile before chicks realize that they were doing the same things that men did to them before women’s movements became a thing.
Richard
Posted at 08:45 pm, 10th January 2019“Trust me, the planet will outlive us”
Yes, the planet will outlive us. The planet outlived the dinosaurs. But the dinosaurs went extinct. And I care more about humans than I do the planet, and global warming without huge technological improvement would result in a massive amount of human suffering. Luckily for us, I do believe technology will improve by leaps and bounds (it already has).
Investor
Posted at 01:24 am, 11th January 2019Climate change is real, that is not disputable.
What is disputable is whether it is human caused and or what percentage is human caused.
It is also disputable whether climate change is a good thing or a bad thing – yes there can be arguments made that it is a good thing.
Furthermore there is that lingering overdue next ice age – it has been suggested global warming my prevent next ice age or that the next ice age could stop global warming.
It is also not true that any action on global warming is automatically good because it makes the world more clean, global warming is mainly related to deposition of carbon into atmosphere which can be done in a very clean way yet the problem persists.
If we decide there are bigger problems (and I will say there are way bigger problems – mass immigration, overpopulation, polution of water and oceans, dangerous geopolitics, dangerous monetary policies, overuse and destruction of fertile soil, impeding antibiotic resistance…) then it would be much smarter to focus on those first, because those could actually cause much bigger problems much sooner…
Investor
Posted at 01:32 am, 11th January 2019Yes, life always thrives. Also the planet is just a piece of rock and the bioshpere is just a thin shell at the surface, ideas to save the planet are ridiculous. The cosmos does not care, we have to make sure we keep the conditions or get out by natural selection, simple.
If you look at some far future climate change projections where are estimates of lush forests and jungles where there are now deserts as a result of the climate change, for example.
Also it is good to keep in mind there were 6 major extinction events in the past, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs was just one of them and there were bigger ones. If a comet of 10km hit the earth we would probably not survive and we still cant track all the comets / asteroids nor do we have a really clear effective way to deal with them if they were on collision course.
Those extinction events – more than 90% of the species died, including most of the bigger ones and all the big ones. To give you an idea how it was during and after a comet impact for example or supervulcano explosion: everything destroyed with earthquakes and falling rocks sizes of buildings in 1000(s) of miles radius around the epicentre, the whole earth covered in dust which results in most of the plant life dying and earth warming up, forests were burning globally and the dead plants meant the remaining plant eating animals died of hunger. The carnivorous animals then died of hunger too.
Yet, life survived and the planet did not care. This has happened 6 times already.
The only way we can survive is if we go into space and other planets – that should be the main focus.
By the way its also ridiculous when people are obsessed with not making waste or whether they take a flight or not because of polution but no one talks about the big factories or industrial transport compared to which it is basically 0 your personal impact.
Investor
Posted at 01:51 am, 11th January 2019This only work in societies where life is soft, easy and safe. It was not like that before not because they did not realize but because they needed the men for protection/money etc. Do you really think that a primitive / tribal society chicks would have power? That is laughable. On the other hand in a way chicks always knew and always had the power that they could decide if theyre just piece of meat or if they are enthusiastic and then tell the guy what he should or shouldnt do, thus pulling the strings from the shadows. That has always happened. The guy did the outside and obvious stuff and the girl did the behind the scenes work.
Richard
Posted at 04:18 am, 11th January 2019Investor: Fertility rates are dropping almost the entire world over. Dangerous geopolitics and destruction of soil is tied to climate change. And I’ve yet to hear of a safe way to deposit carbon in the atmosphere.
And yes, when life for most was nasty, brutish, and short, (some) men had the power and society was patriarchal. However, I’m pretty certain that almost all the guys on this blog would have trouble thriving in such a world if they were magically transported there. After all, societies like that still exist on here now. If I dumped you off in rural Afghanistan, how well do you think you’d do?
Aloofus
Posted at 05:55 am, 11th January 2019Something I’ve never actually heard of mentioned anywhere else, came from a co-worker of mine years ago. He was VERY into meteorology as a passion (not professionally).
He’d basically stated that if the ice caps actually melted, then the change in ocean salinity would cause ocean current changes, which in turn would shift them southwards. Keeping warm water away from the poles would cause the caps to refreeze and swing global temperature opposite, into cooling.
While I don’t know if it’s accurate, seems absolutely to make sense.
I’m aslo reasonably sure we DO already have the technical capability to rely less on fossil fuel for energy, it’s just that the oil industry doesn’t want it. Nuclear energy is fucking clean and safe, and there’s only been a handful of new power plants built in the past 50 years.
Antekirtt
Posted at 07:00 am, 11th January 2019@Joelsuf: no, he didn’t annihilate anything. Carlin wanted humans dead anyway, and your comment was full of fallacies. Your “favorite line” is actually one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard. Why don’t you go educate yourself before spouting nonsense? And before you even educate yourself, why don’t you double-check “favorite lines” for obvious misdirections that even a 10 year old would catch?
Investor
Posted at 08:31 am, 11th January 2019Try Russia or most latin america, those places are still very traditional in this regard and pretty civilized, more or less.
Incorrect, they are mostly tied to overpopulation. There should be only 500million – 2 billion max humans on this planet for everyone to live comfortably and to be sustainable environmentally. We have several times that and the projections are its gonna keep increasing… This needs something to be done with very fast or it will result in several major wars and the environmental problems we have now and supposed food and water shortages are nothing compared to whats coming unless the population is reduced to the levels I mentioned very fast.
If you burn wood, for example, its mostly carbon dioxide and water that comes out plus some dust, this is also true for some types of fosil fuels and gases that you can burn as a fuel. It is therefore completely clean. The problem is the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – not for humans but that it causes greenhouse effect and results in warming of the planet. So the climate change will continue even without any actual pollution. The only way to stop this would be to switch completely to nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal/water/tidal power sources for everything. That could actually be suprisngly feasable in some places, but there are some issues with that so far, but technology could change that.
It is also the reason why bio fuels are complete bullshit, its much less efficient than fossil fuels but results in same amount of carbon being put in atmosphere (which anyway causes climate change…).
This was basically the plot of the movie Day After Tomorrow. Ocean and atmospheric currents are very complex and are not fully understood as it depends on interactions of meny phenomena so its near impossible what would happen exactly, but for sure global warming could result in some local extreme cooling due to currents changing. For example a common fear is that the gulf stream which brings warm water to the British Isles would switch off and cause UK and Ireland to have extreme cold winters instead of the current “extended autumn” they have. It is a big feat over there since the whole place is completely unprepared for that on just about every level of the society. It would also not be a gradual change but a sudden one.
More or less, but its way more expensive for the moment and the infrastructure isnt there yet to be able to just change to non fossil energies on industrial level overnight. I also believe that some industries would simply not be able to exist without fossil fuels. For example, steel manufacturing uses coal in the blast furnace 24/7 to melt the metal and it would be unprofitable to use electricity to heat it to those temperatures. Without coal steel industry would simply switch off and there would be no more steel production, so it is not entirely true. Of course in the absense of coal they would have to do it in another way but then steel would be super expensive. In the end its all about money. The reason for overuse of fossil fuel is because its so easy and cheap, unless you believe some conspiracy stuff like that Nicolai Tesla inventend some geo energy generation that would be free but “they” burried the research etc.
Steven
Posted at 11:29 pm, 11th January 2019During your research, did you happen to come across Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome? Have you read Agenda 21? Did you ever hear about the “Climategate” email hack?
John
Posted at 01:54 am, 12th January 2019Hi.
The output of the sun is not a constant.
You can check NASA’s page , which states “NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE”.
“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century.”This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Antekirtt
Posted at 04:37 am, 12th January 2019@John: no. See the video playlist I linked in this thread (re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP ). More generally, all this “solar explains rising temps” BS collapses as soon as you start seriously checking the sources and what they really say. If it’s a blog citing a blog citing a tabloid citing a blog, you know what’s wrong. The channel I linked heavily cites its sources; I’d seriously bet that any AGW denier watching it in good faith and checking would not come out with their dismissal intact, even if they’re not fully convinced by it.
Also, the club of Rome is just one more example of how extreme views (though nowadays rather dominant in the mainstream) do not represent, or tarnish, the view of working, practicing scientists. It DOESN’T MATTER that doomers have hijacked AGW at the pop news level, it doesn’t change FACTS in one direction or another.
Real scientists do not believe the oceans are gonna boil or that we’re all gonna die, but they do think we’re having an effect on the climate, that the consequences are likely to be negative, and that some of those consequences – not limited at all to temperature – are already underway.
IGNORE the crazy doomers, they’re just ad hominem fodder for someone with confirmation bias trying to dismiss CC too easily. Read actual scientific papers, read the IPCC and its sources, and for fuck’s sake, don’t cherry-pick what you want to find.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:12 am, 12th January 2019I don’t know for sure if that’s accurate, but I lean in that direction as well. On the corporate side you’ve got big oil companies and their kind preventing this stuff, and on the left-wing side you’ve got the crazy environmentalists whose heads explode when you say words like “nuclear” who also put pressure against this stuff.
Great.
david
Posted at 11:32 am, 12th January 20192. If factory jobs are moving to environmental shitholes, why do you want the US to keep those jobs? You want to live in an environmental shithole?
Because the factories here are held to at least SOME environmental standards. EPA became super strict about C02 emissions in the last 20 years, which encouraged high tens of thousands to leave, and go places where they can dump and pollute heavy metals into the air all they want. Big difference between extra c02 in your backyard, and toxic waste, burning garbage, etc.
david
Posted at 11:38 am, 12th January 2019Patriarchy joke was tongue in cheek, but if fossil fuels run out and we go back to 1890s technology, i dont imagine there will be a lot of office jobs for women to apply for. Most activities will be manual labor and the value of men will go up. I dont imagine it would happen overnight. We might see a mad max scenario in some areas.
Gang
Posted at 04:51 pm, 16th January 2019First, I have always been confused about why do people and media tend to title such a systemic environmental and resources crisis as “climate change” or “global warming” which is like one of the most ethereal of all symptoms of all of this crisis generated by population explosion, mass over consumerism and productivism.
Then, I tend to agree that the solution is not political at a international or national scale, more local or even as I believe mostly an individual mind shift on life priorities : embracing minimalism and stop focusing so much on consumerism and productivism they are not fulfilling ways to structure our identities as individuals or societies. However a few things can be done, such as completely stop giving free government taxpayers money to farmers and corporations who grow animal products. There is no valid rational reason whatsoever for any local or national government to give free money to these extremely wasteful industries, damaging the environment and individual health of consumers. As a result price tags of animal products are artificially kept lower instead of a free market natural competition with plant based products. Animal products should be expensive special treats consumed in small quantities over a lifespan. Not the main ingredient of a staple food as it has become in the west.
Of course in term of technology: install more nuclear fission power plants, develop plutonium fueled powerplants (use of standard fission wastes to produce energy and result in less radioactive wastes – such as demonstrated the pilot Superphénix in France which was stupidly stopped for political reasons). And go “all in” to develop fusion nuclear power up to commercial usability. Of course harvesting solar, wind, thermal and hydro energies are great things but I think only nuclear fusion can create a game changing breakthrough.
In term of transportation, I have high hopes for the combination of autonomous and electric vehicles. These could drastically reduce the total amount of vehicle produced and the environmental impact of transportation (if the electricity is produced from nuclear or renewable sources).
However this doesn’t solve the problem of various resources crisis, such as various metals. And for this, only slowing down consumerism with each individual being more mindful about the amount of stuffs and replacement rate can really help.
Way_of_Man
Posted at 06:23 am, 23rd January 2019Caleb,
You and I are in agreement that this topic falls under the “plan for your own personal contingency rather than wait for the governments to get their shit together” umbrella.
My question to you is this:
On a scale from 1-10 how much does current climate issues factor into looking for your residence country? I know some people mention going to Australia, but it seems they’re getting the initial brunt of the environmental issues being caused by climate shift.
I guess another part of that question would be, do you have a contingency plan if things get *very* bad (as in certain parts of the world become inhospitable) or is that a situation that is too low of a percentage to really worry about? Based on the research you’ve done yourself so far.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 08:03 pm, 24th January 2019Perhaps a 4?
No matter where I live, I’m likely to leave near an ocean, so it doesn’t really matter.
A very general contingency plan, which is A) location independent income and investments and a solid financial position so I can move wherever I want, whenever I want, B) multple passports to ensure mobility.
Kurt
Posted at 08:57 am, 10th February 2019So Caleb if passing laws won’t do anything how did the world solve the CFC emissions problem in the 80’s to stop ozone depletion?
By your logic that feat was impossible and could not have happened.