Why all the Caroline Gleich hate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontane

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.

---

This is where I disagree. Lots of people tend to look at environmentalism from the angle of cut, reduce, and restrict. I tend to look at it from the invest, develop and incentivize angle. 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. The same goes for changing an economy centered on fossil fuel based energy. Gas prices are abnormally low in this country compared to the rest of the developed world. Why? Because the gov't subsidizes it to stay low. Same goes for most energy. 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.

To me, this argument that we will suddenly all individually voluntarily reduce our carbon footprint out of this mess is a bong induced pipe dream. To have to cut, reduce and restrict our way out would probably cause suffering, from minor annoyance level suffering to starvation level suffering.

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.

Exactly.
My wife and I do all kinds of crazy shit to conserve water etc. and yet there’s this:
Attachment 296300

Turning the water off while I brush my teeth basically has no effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

On the topic of Arcade, we're currently testing swapping our entire line with environmentally friendly materials. It's been a pain in the ass with a lot of sketchy promises and supply chain opacity but I will say with companies like Patagonia leading the charge, it's getting easier to get to better solutions on that side of things. I won't say exactly what we're doing but we've got numerous products in test on this front.

---

arent a lot of pattagucci things made from recycled plastics? Aren't we seeing a lot of these "microplastics" in our oceans? I've read they come from washing the clothing and the micro beads coming off in the wash and expelling with the waste water. Has pattgucci and Arcade change to not using recycled plastics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

Exactly.
My wife and I do all kinds of crazy shit to conserve water etc. and yet there’s this:

Turning the water off while I brush my teeth basically has no effect.

---

let me guess, next thing you're going to tell us is your boycott of plastic straws is meaningless? you have no future on the 'gram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timberridge

Great. Good luck Cody. I volunteer to test your first plankton based belt. I'm a 36.

---

So if I get lost in the mountains I can eat my belt instead of my partner?
Brilliant 👏👏👏

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWINS

So if I get lost in the mountains I can eat my belt instead of my partner?
Brilliant ������

---

well, sure. but then your pants will fall down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

arent a lot of pattagucci things made from recycled plastics? Aren't we seeing a lot of these "microplastics" in our oceans? I've read they come from washing the clothing and the micro beads coming off in the wash and expelling with the waste water. Has pattgucci and Arcade change to not using recycled plastics?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

let me guess, next thing you're going to tell us is your boycott of plastic straws is meaningless? you have no future on the 'gram.

---

Once I hash tagged about 10 different words, and the next day I had about 10 new followers. I thought that was pretty funny.

I did not post a picture of me in a harness naked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

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 doebedoe

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUPERIOR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total_immortal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

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 NWFlow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total_immortal

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 Bromontane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total_immortal

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.

you mean like cant afford a pack of disposable razors for me boats
blisters on my fingers human powered suffering?
https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y1...psysm9lf0x.jpg

or needing to eat poopfish cockroach casserole mad max thunderdomes suffering?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontane

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontane

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bromontane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total_immortal

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XavierD

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XavierD

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

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

I'll just say this, you guys are all concerned about optics and optics only.

---

Its funny that someone who has made a living being a marketing monkey for the last 20 years doesn't realize the importance of optics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So to sum up the attitudes of the the last few pages.

"individual sacrifices mean nothing without collective action."

"Uh, you go first."

So what do you propose we do?

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

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

POW needs to make new trucker hats. That’ll do it.

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

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

brutah. spot on.

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