Climate Change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Not to be fatalistic, but humanity is irrelevant and won't be around forever. Yeah, our kids, kids, kids.......we'll all be dead. We're a meaningless organism in a huge universe.

So on the other end, other than posting weather events, what is anybody doing about it? And does anyone give a shit enough to actually make meaningful life sacrifices of convenience to change the trajectory of anthropogenic factors?

I'm not calling bullshit on climate change, I'm calling bullshit on any single person willing to sacrifice either money, convenience, affluence, or lifestyle (or a combo of any of these) to make any meaningful benefit.

Only environmentalists I know are first generation poor immigrants who live 8-10 to a house, buy old recycled cars, recycle all sorts of shit into continued use instead of buying new, don't travel the world with their affluence, and "live simply" out of necessity. The rest are just armchair affluents looking to others to sacrifice. Relying on a vote to fix the world is lazy.

---

We are the only known intelligent life form on the only known planet that can harbor life and we’re irrelevant? I guess if you’re a nihilist and nothing matters.

Your points frankly are all recycled personal responsibility tropes. We’re doomed if we’re going to try to individually reduce our carbon use as a means to reduce global emissions. We need strong regulation and investment in renewables and new means of transport. No country has ever tried to fend off an invader with personal responsibility, they do it through massive centralized efforts.

A newish trope for the “conservative” boomers and older Gen X members is to no longer directly deny the existence of global warming but to say “well I’ll be dead before it gets really bad, then it’s THEIR problem”. Truly the Me Generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

<snip>
Regarding self sacrifice, I don't mean voluntary self sacrifice. I'm talking, how much are you willing to pay out of your income in taxes for infrastructure supporting clean energy, etc? Is the collective willing to say, increase your tax liability by 10-20% if it was efficiently spent by the feds/state on clean energy infrastructure?

---

I'm willing to pay a shitload more than I am currently. And would vote for candidates that supported it.

Getting uppity about climate change is one of the most obnoxious virtue signaling mechanisms out there.

That said, we do make a bunch of choices in that regard, but I'm not going to list them. And I do think it's up to each induHvidual to acknowledge cc and make an effort. Including voting.

But, yes to increased taxes if there's actual efficient use for not only environmental issues, but homelessness and more opportunity for disadvantaged.

As far as meaning goes, it is what we, people, give it. No more and for sure not less. Humanity, at least to me, is decidedly not irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Not to be fatalistic, but humanity is irrelevant and won't be around forever. Yeah, our kids, kids, kids.......we'll all be dead. We're a meaningless organism in a huge universe.

So on the other end, other than posting weather events, what is anybody doing about it? And does anyone give a shit enough to actually make meaningful life sacrifices of convenience to change the trajectory of anthropogenic factors?

I'm not calling bullshit on climate change, I'm calling bullshit on any single person willing to sacrifice either money, convenience, affluence, or lifestyle (or a combo of any of these) to make any meaningful benefit.

Only environmentalists I know are first generation poor immigrants who live 8-10 to a house, buy old recycled cars, recycle all sorts of shit into continued use instead of buying new, don't travel the world with their affluence, and "live simply" out of necessity. The rest are just armchair affluents looking to others to sacrifice. Relying on a vote to fix the world is lazy.

---

Yet there you are working in health care under the guise of trying to save humans, and thus humanity through your own meaningful benefit. How does that jive with the world view you've outlined above, shouldn't you just let them die because they are bound to die anyway?

World isn't and has never been the black and white you're trying to paint with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neufox47

We are the only known intelligent life form on the only known planet that can harbor life and we’re irrelevant? I guess if you’re a nihilist and nothing matters.

Your points frankly are all recycled personal responsibility tropes.

---

I am enquiring as to what changes does the collective actually see as effective either on a personal or national scale. And how much sacrifice is the person willing to give it as a society or individual. Sacrifice can either be personal, or government mandated. Where the motivation comes from is not my ask isn't my ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

Yet there you are working in health care under the guise of trying to save humans, and thus humanity through your own meaningful benefit. How does that jive with the world view you've outlined above, shouldn't you just let them die because they are bound to die anyway?

---

That's a stretch. A personal attack, and irrelavent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

That's a stretch. A personal attack, and irrelavent.

---

Read what you wrote again.

" I'm calling bullshit on any single person willing to sacrifice either money, convenience, affluence, or lifestyle (or a combo of any of these) to make any meaningful benefit."

You just called bullshit on yourself if you believe your own choices didn't have any benefit to humanity and there were no sacrifices of money, convenience, affluence, or lifestyle made in the process.

For starters Kamala could propose a 6000 tax on each kid, every year, instead of a tax credit.
At least Hamas and Israel are trying to do their part.

The earth cannot support 8 billion humans (is it 9 yet).
Climate refugees will overwhelm the rich northern countries.
War and disease are our best hope.

It's really quite simple. We need to stop burning shit for heat or power. As soon as possible. We have all kinds of alternatives and most don't require sacrifice, but they will require change. For many, the change won't really affect them (when you flip a light switch you want your lights to come on - do you care what made that happen?). But fossil fuel workers and communities face disruption, and fossil fuel owners will lose value.

This is just the first step, but it's a big one. More than 70% of emissions is from energy. Stop. Burning. Shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

For starters Kamala could propose a 6000 tax on each kid, every year, instead of a tax credit.
At least Hamas and Israel are trying to do their part.

The earth cannot support 8 billion humans (is it 9 yet).
Climate refugees will overwhelm the rich northern countries.
War and disease are our best hope.

---

That's a very cynical view from a healthcare worker;) How could you work in a profession "saving lives" and hold such a volatile world view on humanity! Oh the shame of it all.

I don't get decrying individual efforts versus national, cultural or governmental efforts.

The result is a consequence of the collective and every induhvidual in the collective should be contributing something.

I don't have the clout of Chairman Bill (Gates) or Kamala, but that doesn't mean that the "little things" we do is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I don't get decrying individual efforts versus national, cultural or governmental efforts.

---

I see them as the same thing. One is done upstream of the individual, the other by the individual. Most of them done by the individual cost money and are more easily achievable for those with some sort of disposable income, or a real dedication to prioritizing money to those choices. The latter are imposed by the government, incentivized by the government, or in the form of taxes or downstream consumer price increases to meet government restrictions.

In the end, they all affect the individual (usually).

Quote:

---

Regarding self sacrifice, I don't mean voluntary self sacrifice. I'm talking, how much are you willing to pay out of your income in taxes for infrastructure supporting clean energy, etc? Is the collective willing to say, increase your tax liability by 10-20% if it was efficiently spent by the feds/state on clean energy infrastructure?

---

Mighty big "IF". But, "IF" it was efficiently spent by the feds/state on clean energy infrastructure? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I don't have the clout of Chairman Bill (Gates) or Kamala, but that doesn't mean that the "little things" we do is irrelevant.

---

I agree. All those little things add up.

Quote:

---

Climate refugees will overwhelm the rich northern countries.

---

Not if we build a wall.:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

I see them as the same thing.

---

I didn't get that at all from what you wrote above.

To wit:

I'm calling bullshit on any single person willing to sacrifice either money, convenience, affluence, or lifestyle (or a combo of any of these) to make any meaningful benefit.

With which I completely disagree.

Quote:

---

One is done upstream of the individual, the other by the individual. Most of them done by the individual cost money and are more easily achievable for those with some sort of disposable income, or a real dedication to prioritizing money to those choices.

---

There's a lots of meaningful stuff people can do that's affordable. Eat less farmed meat, less processed food, recycle, buy used, stay local.

Most of the problem is the tribal rejection of what has been pretty well established. Once people see that, I think they're more willing to take steps, however small.

Quote:

---

The latter are imposed by the government, incentivized by the government, or in the form of taxes or downstream consumer price increases to meet government restrictions.

In the end, they all affect the individual (usually).

---

Again, I'm kind of confused by the distinction since I don't see government as intentionally run by some disjoint cabal, as cast by the corpocrats and their lobbyists. They're very good at playing the tribal id game.

There's only some truth to the cabalist view because we've let the very wealthy have too much influence in government instead of being better educated voters.

Government in the USA is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people[/i].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

That's a very cynical view from a healthcare worker;) How could you work in a profession "saving lives" and hold such a volatile world view on humanity! Oh the shame of it all.

---

My grandfather was a lifelong communist who made a lot of money in real estate and insurance. I inherited the gene that lets me hold contradictory views comfortably. (And vascular surgery is rarely about saving lives; more about letting people live out their last days more comfortably.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WMD

It's really quite simple. We need to stop burning shit for heat or power. As soon as possible. We have all kinds of alternatives and most don't require sacrifice, but they will require change. For many, the change won't really affect them (when you flip a light switch you want your lights to come on - do you care what made that happen?). But fossil fuel workers and communities face disruption, and fossil fuel owners will lose value.

This is just the first step, but it's a big one. More than 70% of emissions is from energy. Stop. Burning. Shit.

---

It's easy to say very hard to do. Figure how many how many cars need to be replaced in the US alone, how many home furnaces, how many windfarms and solar farms. Think of the environmental impact of all that. How do you make that happen in the real world. It's not A to B, it;s A to Z, with a lot of collateral damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

My

I inherited the gene that lets me hold contradictory views comfortably.

---

All humans have that gene, and it’s not recessive. You just acknowledge it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

It's easy to say very hard to do. Figure how many how many cars need to be replaced in the US alone, how many home furnaces, how many windfarms and solar farms. Think of the environmental impact of all that. How do you make that happen in the real world. It's not A to B, it;s A to Z, with a lot of collateral damage.

---

Change is hard, for sure. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. We just need to take those first steps.

When your furnace is ready to be replaced, replace it with a heat pump. When you need a new car, get an electric one. Hot water heater - yep, replace it with an electric heat pump version when it wears out. Never buy another new fossil fuel powered anything. If electric versions don't work for what you need now, buy a used, not new fossil fuel powered device and go electric when the right device is available.

There will be a lot of mining for all of this but there is modeling that overall mining will decrease by ~80% because we will be building things that last a long time, not digging up stuff to burn it.

This is just the start...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

My grandfather was a lifelong communist who made a lot of money in real estate and insurance. I inherited the gene that lets me hold contradictory views comfortably. (And vascular surgery is rarely about saving lives; more about letting people live out their last days more comfortably.)



It's easy to say very hard to do. Figure how many how many cars need to be replaced in the US alone, how many home furnaces, how many windfarms and solar farms. Think of the environmental impact of all that. How do you make that happen in the real world. It's not A to B, it;s A to Z, with a lot of collateral damage.

---

Yes, but replacing the energy production, HVAC, appliance and transportation systems is also a major potential economic engine over the next 30-50 years. Sure there will be an environmental impact but far less than if we don’t replace them. And we can minimize it by not allowing mining companies to run rampant and using low carbon energy to make the replacements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I don't get decrying individual efforts versus national, cultural or governmental efforts.

---

I apologize if I came off as dismissing individual efforts. Individual efforts will help but there’s little an individual can do to offset their local power being produced by a coal plant. I was really trying to dismiss the purity test of individual responsibility that Trackhead and so many others promote; that no person can call for collective action unless they themselves have already made significant sacrifices to reduce their carbon footprint.

You misread my intent.

My intent was to read the barometer for self sacrifice of money and convenience to improve humanity. Whether that sacrifice was self imposed or by the government.

I personally think we need more financial incentives for replacement of internal combustion motors and inefficient appliances etc. Electric cars/tools are cool, but a financial nudge from the government helps tip the on the fence consumer in there favor.

How much extra in fed taxes do we all have to pay to support rebates, etc?

And, per Harvard smart person. Are EV rebates equitable? That entire concept needs to be reconsidered as it seems it only benefits upper middle class at this point.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00862-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

I'd say 1/4 of my neighbors have $25,000+ invested into grid tie solar on their roofs, many drive full EV plug-in cars. I live in an overwhelming republican county. So your assessment is judgmental and biased with an odor of elitism. These are all above average income folks, who can afford environmental affluent things. Much like yourself, environmentalism in solar, EV, etc is an affluent trend not all can afford. The trailer park in town doesn't have any of those things. I think people in my area view solar as a fuck you to "big electricity" and energy independence more than doing something for the environment. The plug-ins are owned by commuters.

I think "living simply" is not only good for the environment, but also the mind/soul. Less "stuff" is liberating. It's also compatible with not having debt, which is equally nice.

Regarding self sacrifice, I don't mean voluntary self sacrifice. I'm talking, how much are you willing to pay out of your income in taxes for infrastructure supporting clean energy, etc? Is the collective willing to say, increase your tax liability by 10-20% if it was efficiently spent by the feds/state on clean energy infrastructure?

Not arguing, just questioning the dedication to the movement.

---

Your small sample size of Montonians is not indicative of all of Montana. But good for you neighbors...you sure the EV and solar roofed people are all R?

https://seia.org/solar-state-by-state/
41st out of 50
Montana is not a good location for solar installations

Montana Solar Data
Data Current Through: Q2 2024

National Ranking: 41st (28th in 2023)

Total Solar Installed (MW): 305

Total State Solar Jobs: 352

Percentage of State's Electricity from Solar: 1.69

Enough State Solar Installed to Power: 42139 homes

https://www.iseecars.com/states-with...ric-cars-study
43rd out of 50

43
Montana
0.5%


This is what's called a perceived truth vs objective truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k2skier112

Your small sample size of Montonians is not indicative of all of Montana. But good for you neighbors...you sure the EV and solar roofed people are all R?

---

I don't talk politics with my neighbors, do you?

Something is better than nothing, right? Why belittle Montana as being slower on the uptake of solar?

My neighborhood is mostly new homes, wealthy people moving here from Bozeman, retired. These are the people in my community that have $25,000 of disposable income to invest in solar. Also, solar and latitude are a thing, notice southern states have higher adoption rates. Why is that? Return on investment is easier in Arizona than it is in Montana.

In terms of EV car adoption, Montana is a big state, it's cold as fuck here, there isn't a shit ton of EV infrastructure. Lithium cars inarguably are challenged by distances, and cold. Maybe that has some influence on adoption, as well as income. Most of the states with higher EV use are also states with higher household income.

Do low income people rent, or own homes? Most rent. Would you want to invest whatever $$ in home charging station in a rental home, an apartment, a condo in a place you might only live for a few years? What is the $$ incentive to invest in effecient home appliances/tools for the renter?

There is a bigger picture than politics at play here.

I do talk politics and environment with my neighbors. I'm surrounded by homes with enormous lawns; I offer to give them trees to plant. I've gotten 1 taker.

And yeah, something like little induhvidual efforts _are_ better than nothing. When combined, that's the groundswell that drives government to encourage more policy and infrastructure that addresses cc. That's the point and it is political.

I'm so fucking stupid, I can't see how in one breath the geas is laid on the gubbermint and simultaneously dismissing politics and the induhvidual. None of these arguments make sense to me.

It just seems so limp wristed to dismiss what each persona can do, how the responsibility is on each of us.