• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Climate Change Crisis & Looking Away

Status
Not open for further replies.
And by that time, it is too late, i reckon. The change will have so much inertia behind it... it already has a lot.

Yeah, something the majority of people just either don't have the capacity to understand or are too busy to even be able to care about. Those in power who can do something about it, meanwhile, are too invested in the system that's causing it. So they won't do shit either.
 
The best solution is in geoengineering. The worlds industrial base depends on fossil fuels and there's nothing we can do about it. The reductions in CO2 required aren't going to be matched by alternative energy sources because they are too expensive.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Climate change is a devil of a problem.

It's slow moving, the inertia with both the problem and our reaction to it is massive - meaning that it'll take massive action and effort to slow it down as well, and the responsibility is diffuse. Not just psychologically but politically and socially... and there's all sorts of tragedy of the commons/game theory stuff happening.

It's been described by many as the perfect problem - in its extent and in how well it defeats our problem solving mechanisms.

The only trump card we have is accelerating and unexpected technology progress. Technology is one of those factors that has repeatedly in our past changed our behaviour in significant ways, in turn altering the way we relate to our environments, to each other and our ecosystem.

The solution is really to leverage the technology to achieve the best outcome for all concerned. We can only solve this problem in a way that gets people to act synergistically with the methods we devise. We can tell them not to do this or not to do that until we're blue in the face - but as long as the psychology of a human being means that there's a great chance that they're willing to deny the problem irrespective of what evidence you throw at them, then it means that all the big problems of human action will remain.

Luckily... we're rapidly making some of the strides we need to get where we need to go. Solar panel growth is growing at a rate far exceeding even the most optimistic predictions from the last 5-10 years. Additionally, battery capacity growth is ramping up at the same time that battery technology solutions are diversifying (molten salt is a promising vector for economic household storage, along side Tesla's home battery storage plan).

On the other side of the equation is that the younger generation are using less energy than their parents, as a function of changing lifestyles and demands. Less car usage, smaller houses/apartments, etc. Less embodied energy really.

On the mid term horizon, we have Virtual Reality changing the way we think about computing, and changing the rules on how we interact with our society and environment.

It is possible to improve the technology to the extent where it becomes the default socializing tool. When that happens, massive sea-change will occur at the structural societal level - work, education, services can be shifted too the 'net, much more so than it is even now. This in turn effects commute, traffic, property demand and prices, consumption etc. VR is no less than a tool that changes the material/experiential dichotomy. That is, we can use digital information to provide experiential information, allowing us to circumvent the physical materials (and the energy of manufacturing, distributing, etc) required to create that experiential information otherwise.

We've already passed the point where we can avoid climate change unscathed. But we haven't passed the threshold where we're doomed - where no action, no matter the magnitude and efficacy can stop us from been boiled alive... the actions, ideas and societal changes we allow to happen in the next decade or two will determine our long term future as a species.

We'll suffer significant humanitarian crisis... but it's still our choice whether or not we vault past these problems, or reset the clock of civilization, pushing it back hundreds to thousands of years.
 
I think at least part of the problem is that, in most countries at least, the Green parties tend to be about the most leftist of all parties out there. I understand that there's certain things that a pro-environment party needs to be "big state" about (imposing emission targets etc), but there's also lots of things they don't need to be like that on yet almost invariably are. This makes voting for them, for someone like me, basically impossible.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
You know, people say this a lot of the time, but then fail to mention that countries that have already industrialized output many, many times more per capita. We may criticize a developing country in Africa for doubling its output per capita, but fail to acknowledge that even that higher CO2 output pales in comparison to our own. If anyone wants to prevent global warming from escalating even more, it's going to have to be the world's economic great powers that lead the way.

If you want to make serious strides, there's really only one way. Less. People need to consume less. Use less energy, consume less raw materials and so on.
And honestly? I think at this point its clear we need to have it imposed. Nothing spontaneous is going to manifest in the wide populations
 
And honestly? I think at this point its clear we need to have it imposed. Nothing spontaneous is going to manifest in the wide populations


Yeah, definitely. Been saying that for ages.

Here in Holland we used to have these campaigns that said 'Een beter milieu begint bij jezelf'. Which translates roughly to 'A better environment starts with you'. Which is a massive load of crap. Closing the fucking tap while you're brushing your teeth isn't going to stop this train from hurtling towards oblivion. Not to mention the fact that the amount of families actually trying to live carbon neutral is infinitesimally small. Which is no surprise cause we (and everyone) need(s) to pay them bills. Like many others, I'm not going to explain to my clients that 'no I'm not driving out for a meeting, I'll send them an email, because the world is ending'. And I numb the pain through buying a whole bunch of shit I don't need. It's terrible.
 

Maengun1

Member
Climate change is a devil of a problem.

It's slow moving, the inertia with both the problem and our reaction to it is massive - meaning that it'll take massive action and effort to slow it down as well, and the responsibility is diffuse. Not just psychologically but politically and socially... and there's all sorts of tragedy of the commons/game theory stuff happening.

It's been described by many as the perfect problem - in its extent and in how well it defeats our problem solving mechanisms.

The only trump card we have is accelerating and unexpected technology progress. Technology is one of those factors that has repeatedly in our past changed our behaviour in significant ways, in turn altering the way we relate to our environments, to each other and our ecosystem.

The solution is really to leverage the technology to achieve the best outcome for all concerned. We can only solve this problem in a way that gets people to act synergistically with the methods we devise. We can tell them not to do this or not to do that until we're blue in the face - but as long as the psychology of a human being means that there's a great chance that they're willing to deny the problem irrespective of what evidence you throw at them, then it means that all the big problems of human action will remain.

Luckily... we're rapidly making some of the strides we need to get where we need to go. Solar panel growth is growing at a rate far exceeding even the most optimistic predictions from the last 5-10 years. Additionally, battery capacity growth is ramping up at the same time that battery technology solutions are diversifying (molten salt is a promising vector for economic household storage, along side Tesla's home battery storage plan).

On the other side of the equation is that the younger generation are using less energy than their parents, as a function of changing lifestyles and demands. Less car usage, smaller houses/apartments, etc. Less embodied energy really.

On the mid term horizon, we have Virtual Reality changing the way we think about computing, and changing the rules on how we interact with our society and environment.

It is possible to improve the technology to the extent where it becomes the default socializing tool. When that happens, massive sea-change will occur at the structural societal level - work, education, services can be shifted too the 'net, much more so than it is even now. This in turn effects commute, traffic, property demand and prices, consumption etc. VR is no less than a tool that changes the material/experiential dichotomy. That is, we can use digital information to provide experiential information, allowing us to circumvent the physical materials (and the energy of manufacturing, distributing, etc) required to create that experiential information otherwise.

We've already passed the point where we can avoid climate change unscathed. But we haven't passed the threshold where we're doomed - where no action, no matter the magnitude and efficacy can stop us from been boiled alive... the actions, ideas and societal changes we allow to happen in the next decade or two will determine our long term future as a species.

We'll suffer significant humanitarian crisis... but it's still our choice whether or not we vault past these problems, or reset the clock of civilization, pushing it back hundreds to thousands of years.


Great post, thanks
 

Nelo Ice

Banned
The fact this thread hasn't moved past the first page is kind of telling as well. Shit's just too damn depressing.

Yes, yes it is. I always try to discuss it and people look at me like I'm crazy. Even stuff with the drought in my state of California. No one seems to be worried or they're just looking the other way :(.

Besides that, I'm doing what little things I can to help the environment. Of course if I had money I would get a tesla and do whatever else I could afford that could help reduce my environmental impact.
 

MikeyB

Member
I actually blame liberal parties for not attempting to explain what's happening in simple terms. Global warming has become a buzzword but there's no actual fucking explanation attached to it for the average joe to understand.

Bullshit. Not understanding it is willful ignorance at this point. It's simple science about trapping heat and it has a basis in the climate history of pur planet.

Bill Nye explains the damn thing in like 15 seconds in multiple appearances.

Klein's a loudmouth though and nobody should adopt her as a spokesman for anything. If people will ignore imminent danger to their children because it is too much work they will definitely ignore it if the voice telling them is obnoxious.

Oh: watch Chasing Ice if you need visual evidence. It's on Netflix.
 

AkuMifune

Banned
I honestly think the best way to handle the issue (after we stop doing the damaging shit we can't help ourselves with) is to let the earth heal itself. I feel like if we try to "fix" it with technology we'll end up screwing it up worse because we don't know half of the shit we think we do about our own planet.

snowpiercer.gif
 

Maengun1

Member
Yes, yes it is. I always try to discuss it and people look at me like I'm crazy. Even stuff with the drought in my state of California. No one seems to be worried or they're just looking the other way :(.

Besides that, I'm doing what little things I can to help the environment. Of course if I had money I would get a tesla and do whatever else I could afford that could help reduce my environmental impact.

Yeah I've been feeling this lately too. I've showed a lot of the stuff I've read lately to some of my family and friends, and they ....don't want to talk about it. Not sure how else to put that lol. Not hostile or anything, these are people who recycle and say we need to protect the environment and (mostly) vote for people who say the same. But when I started showing some of the more troubling info they say stuff like "well hopefully we'll be dead before this happens" "this is too sad to think about" "it can't really be THAT bad" etc.

Frustrating :(

But I guess I myself was in that camp until really recently, so some progress is being made.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
I honestly think the best way to handle the issue (after we stop doing the damaging shit we can't help ourselves with) is to let the earth heal itself. I feel like if we try to "fix" it with technology we'll end up screwing it up worse because we don't know half of the shit we think we do about our own planet.

snowpiercer.gif

We can only willingly move forward with technology.

If we move backwards... either voluntarily or involuntarily - the cycle will only repeat. Because technology confers local and global competitive advantages, ensuring that the arrow of progress will point forwards where possible.

The answer can only be to ensure that we master technology in harmony with our supporting biosphere.... that is if we want to achieve a steady state where the same sins aren't repeated at a later date.
 

MikeyB

Member
.... that is if we want to achieve a steady state where the same sins aren't repeated at a later date.

I thought that if we were to destroy our current tools, it is unlikely that a similar state of technology would ever be reached on this planet again because we have tapped the easily accessible metals and fuels.

Easily mined metals simply don't exist in sufficient quantity any more. (Never mind any technology that may use helium).
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
This sounds exactly like the kind of attitude that wont result in solutions.

It's hard not to be cynical when so many (including myself) are satisfied enough with their present lifestyle that they are unwilling to take individual action to help promote a truly sustainable form of living.

I agree with the above posters wholeheartedly: Amy changes that will result in a meaningful positive impact on our environment long term will need to be imposed upon us by a benevolent government. We simply are incapable of all simultaneously looking far ahead into a cloudy vision of the future and willingly surrender what we have now to ensure that abstract doomsday scenario does not play out hundreds of years from now.
 
Should we force countries like China, India and other developing countries to comply? Hell, if the fate of the planet is at stake, what's a few million people sacrificed to war over environmental compliance?
 
Even if you don't want to read the long article in the OP, NASA's leading scientists have assembled a web site that explains Climate Change, Global Warming, it's effects, ect... in a really simple manner: http://climate.nasa.gov

For f*** sakes... there is no excuse to be ignorant about this.
 
I actually blame liberal parties for not attempting to explain what's happening in simple terms. Global warming has become a buzzword but there's no actual fucking explanation attached to it for the average joe to understand.

I'm 27 years old and I was taught about the basic principles of global warming in my science class when I was in 5th grade. It's not difficult to understand.

The people who continually empower people to question scientists on things they're unqualified to talk about in any capacity are to blame (aka conservative politicians and those with interests in fossil fuel industries). The government and politicians should stop politicizing science, and treat science as an attempt at objective truth. Science has become an authority to be questioned by a large part of society and that's not a way to make progress on any front.
 
I'm 27 years old and I was taught about the basic principles of global warming in my science class when I was in 5th grade. It's not difficult to understand.

The people who continually empower people to question scientists on things they're unqualified to talk about in any capacity are to blame (aka conservative politicians and those with interests in fossil fuel industries). The government and politicians should stop politicizing science, and treat science as an attempt at objective truth. Science has become an authority to be questioned by a large part of society and that's not a way to make progress on any front.

Thank you. The post you responded to was infuriating to me. The notion that some other group is at fault for failing to communicate the message is utter BS. Climate Change/Global Warming is a part of grade school curriculum that EVERYBODY should have an understanding of. That's your own failure. Not someone else's. And then that person will continue to perpetuate BS concerning CC/GW.

F***.THAT.SH!T.
 

danwarb

Member
Not going to happen. People are not going to willingly go backwards in lifestyle, and that's what would be required if we switched over to all green technologies at the moment. Eventually those technologies will solve this problem(it is already starting to happen) but it takes time to roll out a complete infrastructure change over.

There is also that we don't even know that stopping all carbon output immediately would halt the warming or if it is too late.

One way or another we are going to have to solve this problem with geo-engineering, and there are plenty of solutions which are both theoretically feasible and cost effective, but no one is going to be interested in taking them seriously until we reach a last resort situation.

A much better environment plus the means to produce your own energy, not beholden to a few big dicks with power plants and mines, wouldn't be a step backwards. The tough bit is affordable renewables.
 

MikeyB

Member
There's always the gamble of some groundbreaking technology helping to fight climate change, but yeah, resources are being dumped into adaptation, because our CO2 ppm is already ridiculous and would continue to climb even if we stopped our fossil fuel burning.

If you're interested in how we've been in similar ecosystem collapse situations before A Short History of Progress and Collapse are two great books. The short history is... shorter. The important difference between this and prior collapses is that they were localised and people could move to get away from it.

On triggering Siberian permafrost melt - we are already there.
 
It's hard not to be cynical when so many (including myself) are satisfied enough with their present lifestyle that they are unwilling to take individual action to help promote a truly sustainable form of living.

I agree with the above posters wholeheartedly: Amy changes that will result in a meaningful positive impact on our environment long term will need to be imposed upon us by a benevolent government. We simply are incapable of all simultaneously looking far ahead into a cloudy vision of the future and willingly surrender what we have now to ensure that abstract doomsday scenario does not play out hundreds of years from now.

Don't worry, we don't need to see that far ahead into the future since we're already less than a hundred years away from that doomsday scenario.
 
Thank you. The post you responded to was infuriating to me. The notion that some other group is at fault for failing to communicate the message is utter BS. Climate Change/Global Warming is a part of grade school curriculum that EVERYBODY should have an understanding of. That's your own failure. Not someone else's. And then that person will continue to perpetuate BS concerning CC/GW.

F***.THAT.SH!T.

I dunno, I believe that if you sat down a non-believer in CC/GW and actually tried giving him or her a simple explanation, they would then believe in CC/GW.

Politicians (who actually believe in CC/GW) should be working more on these people and hence getting votes in so that we actually can do something about it rather than be gridlocked in the political system.
 
The problem would be at least partially solved had we begun building more nuclear plants a decade ago. Instead we held out for the day when solar power would take the massive technological step needed to become a viable alternative to coal, and here we are. Still making the exact same mistake.
 

Cyan

Banned
I dunno, I believe that if you sat down a non-believer in CC/GW and actually tried giving him or her a simple explanation, they would then believe in CC/GW.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, it just ain't so. I can't find the study at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was posted on GAF in the last few months. Turns out if you sit down a non-believer in CC/GW and give them a simple explanation, they then believe even less in CC/GW.

The problem isn't that people aren't getting the correct information. The problem is that it's being drowned out or shunted aside in favor of misinformation from a major political party and the largest "news" station in the country. When you don't like the policy implications of the truth, it's easier to pretend the truth isn't there.
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Climate change is a devil of a problem.

It's slow moving, the inertia with both the problem and our reaction to it is massive - meaning that it'll take massive action and effort to slow it down as well, and the responsibility is diffuse. Not just psychologically but politically and socially... and there's all sorts of tragedy of the commons/game theory stuff happening.

It's been described by many as the perfect problem - in its extent and in how well it defeats our problem solving mechanisms.

The only trump card we have is accelerating and unexpected technology progress. Technology is one of those factors that has repeatedly in our past changed our behaviour in significant ways, in turn altering the way we relate to our environments, to each other and our ecosystem.

The solution is really to leverage the technology to achieve the best outcome for all concerned. We can only solve this problem in a way that gets people to act synergistically with the methods we devise. We can tell them not to do this or not to do that until we're blue in the face - but as long as the psychology of a human being means that there's a great chance that they're willing to deny the problem irrespective of what evidence you throw at them, then it means that all the big problems of human action will remain.

Luckily... we're rapidly making some of the strides we need to get where we need to go. Solar panel growth is growing at a rate far exceeding even the most optimistic predictions from the last 5-10 years. Additionally, battery capacity growth is ramping up at the same time that battery technology solutions are diversifying (molten salt is a promising vector for economic household storage, along side Tesla's home battery storage plan).

On the other side of the equation is that the younger generation are using less energy than their parents, as a function of changing lifestyles and demands. Less car usage, smaller houses/apartments, etc. Less embodied energy really.

On the mid term horizon, we have Virtual Reality changing the way we think about computing, and changing the rules on how we interact with our society and environment.

It is possible to improve the technology to the extent where it becomes the default socializing tool. When that happens, massive sea-change will occur at the structural societal level - work, education, services can be shifted too the 'net, much more so than it is even now. This in turn effects commute, traffic, property demand and prices, consumption etc. VR is no less than a tool that changes the material/experiential dichotomy. That is, we can use digital information to provide experiential information, allowing us to circumvent the physical materials (and the energy of manufacturing, distributing, etc) required to create that experiential information otherwise.

We've already passed the point where we can avoid climate change unscathed. But we haven't passed the threshold where we're doomed - where no action, no matter the magnitude and efficacy can stop us from been boiled alive... the actions, ideas and societal changes we allow to happen in the next decade or two will determine our long term future as a species.

We'll suffer significant humanitarian crisis... but it's still our choice whether or not we vault past these problems, or reset the clock of civilization, pushing it back hundreds to thousands of years.

This was an interesting post, but we are quickly approaching the threshold where human activity becomes moot. Can technological advancement and societal level change happen soon enough? What is the window? No one really knows, but what we are observing is that models are too conservative and things are moving fast enough to surprise scientists who made predictions within just the last five years. We interview all these scientists of different disciplines and many are saying, "Well, yeah but... this phenomenon I'm somberly describing to you at the moment in detail isn't actually even accounted for in the models". Whether it's methane releases, the diminished albedo effect from blackened snow and ice cover, there are all these contributing factors (amplifiers) that the models don't currently account for. Every year there is more of it. Every year the predictions of sea level rise look more grim. The IPCC predictions are even scary and their stuff is like a wet fart compared to reality. Too conservative. Too political. (get the fuckin politicians out of that shit already!) The window continues to shrink and we do nothing.

Unexpected and accelerating technology might be a trump card, but of course technology isn't the only thing accelerating.
 
Best thing is, once we trigger the melting of siberian permafrost, it will get ugly fast. Methan is the real danger.

Dug up this:

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp?MR=1

So they estimated 1000 years for Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event to happen. Which is natural global warming. More info here:

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp

They say however that our planet is warming 10 times faster than this event, so we're looking at the next 100 years or so for some bad stuff to happen. So good luck to our families in the next two generations!

That would be nice. Unfortunately, it just ain't so. I can't find the study at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was posted on GAF in the last few months. Turns out if you sit down a non-believer in CC/GW and give them a simple explanation, they then believe even less in CC/GW.

The problem isn't that people aren't getting the correct information. The problem is that it's being drowned out or shunted aside in favor of misinformation from a major political party and the largest "news" station in the country. When you don't like the policy implications of the truth, it's easier to pretend the truth isn't there.

Damn. Well that's horrifying then. The only hope then I guess is to influence people who believe it but aren't actually alarmed enough by it to take action. I do believe there's lots of people out there that will do something, but don't know what they can do. Or they just plain forget. We could communicate the urgency message better.

...I still feel there is some hope for people drowned by political hogwash, but who knows on the fix for that.
 
That would be nice. Unfortunately, it just ain't so. I can't find the study at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was posted on GAF in the last few months. Turns out if you sit down a non-believer in CC/GW and give them a simple explanation, they then believe even less in CC/GW.

The problem isn't that people aren't getting the correct information. The problem is that it's being drowned out or shunted aside in favor of misinformation from a major political party and the largest "news" station in the country. When you don't like the policy implications of the truth, it's easier to pretend the truth isn't there.

Backfire effect?
 

Robotguy

Member
That would be nice. Unfortunately, it just ain't so. I can't find the study at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was posted on GAF in the last few months. Turns out if you sit down a non-believer in CC/GW and give them a simple explanation, they then believe even less in CC/GW.
Yeah, it's a pretty well documented effect where when people hold a highly polarized view and are presented with evidence that they are wrong they often end up being even more convinced of their beliefs. I remember seeing an article about it pertaining to the anti-vax moment on GAF a while ago, but I don't remember seeing one that was specific to climate change though.
 

aeolist

Banned
I think at least part of the problem is that, in most countries at least, the Green parties tend to be about the most leftist of all parties out there. I understand that there's certain things that a pro-environment party needs to be "big state" about (imposing emission targets etc), but there's also lots of things they don't need to be like that on yet almost invariably are. This makes voting for them, for someone like me, basically impossible.

so you'd rather vote for a more limited government even though more liberal parties are the only ones addressing the greatest existential crisis humankind has ever faced?

lower taxes must be pretty important to you
 

Afrodium

Banned
Worry warts everywhere. I got so much snow outside my window right now.

I think you're joking, but this argument makes my blood boil. It's like people don't understand that global warming refers to the entire globe and not specifically the area they live in.
 

Hari Seldon

Member
I thought shit was going pretty good lately. Forests are recovering in lots of places, Solar Power is waaaaay up year over year. I got LED lightbulbs everywhere now. Everyone has fuel efficient cars. What the hell else do they want?
 

Cyan

Banned
Yeah, it's a pretty well documented effect where when people hold a highly polarized view and are presented with evidence that they are wrong they often end up being even more convinced of their beliefs. I remember seeing an article about it pertaining to the anti-vax moment on GAF a while ago, but I don't remember seeing one that was specific to climate change though.

Now that I think about it, the anti-vax one is probably what I was thinking of. Hups! Though yeah, the effect is going to be the same for climate change disbelief.
 
This topic always confuses and infuriates me. I mean sure, you can not believe in climate change. But still, the oceans are acidifying due to the carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. Elon Musk said it was the most insane experiment ever by humankind and I agree. What do deniers think will happen when the global population grows even larger and carbon emissions double again? Where is this going to go? What is so wrong with trying to generate energy more efficiently and completely reusable? It's insane that this is even a political issue. We have to change our very way of life to survive on this planet.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
This topic always confuses and infuriates me. I mean sure, you can not believe in climate change. But still, the oceans are acidifying due to the carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. Elon Musk said it was the most insane experiment ever by humankind and I agree. What do deniers think will happen when the global population grows even larger and carbon emissions double again? Where is this going to go? What is so wrong with trying to generate energy more efficiently and completely reusable? It's insane that this is even a political issue. We have to change our very way of life to survive on this planet.

When the consequences are so displaced in time its super duper easy to basically ignore it since it has negligible impact on your actual day to day experiences

Contrary to what some people think, people aren't actually that good at thinking ahead, especially the less tangibly they perceive the consequences.
 

Nelo Ice

Banned
I'm 27 years old and I was taught about the basic principles of global warming in my science class when I was in 5th grade. It's not difficult to understand.

The people who continually empower people to question scientists on things they're unqualified to talk about in any capacity are to blame (aka conservative politicians and those with interests in fossil fuel industries). The government and politicians should stop politicizing science, and treat science as an attempt at objective truth. Science has become an authority to be questioned by a large part of society and that's not a way to make progress on any front.

Yeah it just seems people in general ignore science or deny it. Along with thinking o it can't be that bad. I still find it crazy how easily people believe under baked or pseudoscience. And of course once it gets to that point it's usually impossible to convince people with logic and fact.

When the consequences are so displaced in time its super duper easy to basically ignore it since it has negligible impact on your actual day to day experiences

Contrary to what some people think, people aren't actually that good at thinking ahead, especially the less tangibly they perceive the consequences.

Yup this right here. No one will care about anything until it directly affects them. I've seen this in friends and family all the time. They'll carelessly spend money because o I'm living now or they'll blast the volume up on their earphones cuz who cares about long term damage anyway?. Also even for stuff like saving money. Most people I've talked to seem to think I'm nuts for even thinking about saving and investing for retirement now.
 
That would be nice. Unfortunately, it just ain't so. I can't find the study at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it was posted on GAF in the last few months. Turns out if you sit down a non-believer in CC/GW and give them a simple explanation, they then believe even less in CC/GW.

The problem isn't that people aren't getting the correct information. The problem is that it's being drowned out or shunted aside in favor of misinformation from a major political party and the largest "news" station in the country. When you don't like the policy implications of the truth, it's easier to pretend the truth isn't there.

I believe this is the study you're referring to:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=984416

Or this:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=928588

I thought shit was going pretty good lately. Forests are recovering in lots of places, Solar Power is waaaaay up year over year. I got LED lightbulbs everywhere now. Everyone has fuel efficient cars. What the hell else do they want?

According to this link 71% of households still use incandescents. Also, for hybrids/EVs:
1402336474000-hybrid.jpg


This is the reaction I get when I bring up Climate Change with anyone without even bringing up consequences/affects:
bender-laughing.gif
 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
When the consequences are so displaced in time its super duper easy to basically ignore it since it has negligible impact on your actual day to day experiences

Contrary to what some people think, people aren't actually that good at thinking ahead, especially the less tangibly they perceive the consequences.

The thing about climate change though is that it's something we know will impact us during our lifetimes, and most certainly quite significantly in the next 100 years. A century is a long time, but it's not that long. Not really when you think about it.

And even some of the scary stuff (but not immediately scary because it's) considered to be far off, really isn't that far off.

It's like, yeah okay so methane release isn't going to be an abrupt change. They understand now that thermodynamic factors are going to keep that from changing too abruptly, and that it might be 100 years before it really gets moving much at all. But does that really make it any better? 100 years isn't that long. In geologic time it's barely an eye blink. In human time, a few generations. It's one of the few times (if ever?) where geologic time and human time overlap in a way that the latter can actually feel it. Unprecedented. And while methane with be a slow roll, 100 years away, it's one of those things that just cannot be stopped once it has enough momentum and will eclipse humanity's best attempt to fuck up climate. Even if it takes a couple hundred years. That really should be fast enough to warrant attention. That is on the human time scale. Something we can make sense of in our tiny minds. Not like we're discussing evolution or deep time here.
 

Mrmartel

Banned
“Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.”

One of my favorite Huxley quotes.

I think another big issue is the impact or effects that people actually feel or have seen. Up in my rural area of Canada. Nobody gives two shits about climate change. Because none of it's effects have been felt here yet. Oh sure you see it on the news, but it happens someplace far away (yes California is far away).

Until there are massive super storms, extreme droughts and especially mass migrations (that happen locally, or affect a local populations economy and comfort) due specifically to CC, than most people could care less.

Also being a conservative area, the Liberal/Left wing talking heads and those who would enact policies to contain/reduce CC, are rightfully look at as hypocrites. Nothing more annoying than a city slicker coming into town and complaining about big trucks and massive houses. When he/she lives a horribly consumerist, materialist, jet setting lifestyle.

Also I can't think of any one CC advocate that practices what they preach. They are far worst hypocrites (from my experience), than those that I know that practice Christianity, Islam, or other such Orthodox beliefs
 
We better start investing in space travel cause we might not have a habitable planet halfway through this century. Spare tires, ya know.
 
“Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted.”

One of my favorite Huxley quotes.

I think another big issue is the impact or effects that people actually feel or have seen. Up in my rural area of Canada. Nobody gives two shits about climate change. Because none of it's effects have been felt here yet. Oh sure you see it on the news, but it happens someplace far away (yes California is far away).

Until there are massive super storms, extreme droughts and especially mass migrations (that happen locally, or affect a local populations economy and comfort) due specifically to CC, than most people could care less.

Also being a conservative area, the Liberal/Left wing talking heads and those who would enact policies to contain/reduce CC, are rightfully look at as hypocrites. Nothing more annoying than a city slicker coming into town and complaining about big trucks and massive houses. When he himself lives a horribly consumerist, materialist, jet setting lifestyle himself.

Also I can't think of any one CC advocate that practices what they preach. They are far worst hypocrites (from my experience), than those that I know that practice Christianity, Islam, or other such Orthodox beliefs

And that sums up my experience with Canadian politics in a nutshell. My slight glimmer of hope is that maybe our attitude will change in those Climate summit meetings once we finally get rid of Harper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom