The new kurzgesagt video fits really nicely into this discussion here.
5 Likes
Good video.
Made me laugh at the end when it said it was sponsored by Bill Gates.
Good luck getting the climate deniers on side with that oneā¦
2 Likes
This issue needs highlighting, but cars arenāt a single-matter problem. Itās not the container ships that are giving our kids asthma, running people over in residential streets, causing noise pollution that gives us chronic stress, using up valuable city space with roads and carparks, or causing a casual massacre of wildlifeā¦
2 Likes
FYI - Sulfur 2020 is worth looking in to. Impressive progress on an absolutely massive source of pollution and GHG. Shipping combines low friction with optimal speeds and bulk aggregation, all things that we need in a low-carbon future. Cargo ships are great when you donāt feed them with garbage petroleum products - which is what you did before Sulfur 2020.
I love the idea of a less car dependent world. But I have concerns about public transit in the US - our dismal sanitation standards specifically - during a respiratory pandemic.
interesting to know how it goes in UK.
because here in Ukraine a lot of people assume that our local situation with bike lanes and bike traffic is uniquely bad.
but it turns out that itās even comparable.
2 Likes
Excellent video. While Iād agree with the final opinion in that a wider systemic change is needed (in the way we vote etc) to have any real effect on the problem, I would still call it an unrealistic dream. A coupla examples:
[begin rant]
So far weāve seen that attempts to enact actual and useful change are subject to scare campaigns by those with with the money and vested interest to keep things the way they are; and so politicians tend to lose elections as a result. Incoming politicians will quite happily undo previous changes.
Add increasing tribalism/polarisation to that. For example, conservatives see progressives fighting for abortion rights and so demonise every other stance they might also hold. Or they might actually agree with those other stances but the single issue trumps every other political consideration. A minor inconvenience or new requirement becomes an attack on personal freedom. Anyone appealing to the greater good is a communist agitator. The internet might offer information and education for all but it also offers echo chambers and additional avenues for manipulation and radicalisation.
Moving on from political polarisation, what about the scientists? Well for starters the scientific community keeps pushing this evolution explanation which in many minds is a delusion that clearly disagrees with what the bible says (just to be clear Iām perfectly fine with evolution even as a Christian, there are other explanations for the Genesis narrative) or they got some other thing wrong in the past. So why should they trust them now when thereās loads of easily found resources on the internet telling them otherwise? Itās not that people are stupid, itās just that in many cases they were never given the resources to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Theyāre certainly not going to understand the intricacies of various models and why inaccurate models are considered useful. They often donāt know who to trust, so theyāll stick with whatever is at least consistent with their worldview; because at least nobody there is insulting their intelligence and/or demonising them. And sometimes theyāll actively contribute to further muddying the waters.
Last example is good old fashioned fear. The idea that the human race, or at least our current way of life, may be well and truly fcked is not an easy thing for brains to process. Itās a whole lot easier to put the blinkers on and carry on as usual for as long as possible when the alternative involves having to deal with that inevitable climate grief (plenty of psych research being done in this area). And such a mindset is simply not willing to vote for real change unless real change allows for business as usual, which it doesnāt.
These are just a few, but there are any number of lines of thought all tangled up and contributing to the Gordian knot of inertia; and thereās simply not enough time to untangle it all. (Continuing on the theme of gordian knots, thereās no human endeavour capable of cutting through the knot that wonāt end in disaster).
So by all means we should be doing whatever we can (personally, Iām still aiming for a career in the enviro sciences) but expecting any real systemic change is false hope.
[end rant]
Ps: not directing my rant at you, only commenting on the video.
1 Like
No worries, most of the points in your rant I would agree with anyway. I have a very pessimistic view on the future, but Iād still fully agree with your point of doing whatever we can, even if the impact is miniscule.
I actually did my PhD in the field of sustainability/ecosystem services, so I wish you all the best for your academic career!
1 Like
All good points.
Iām not optimistic about our chances, I reckon weāll be dumb enough to let this play out until the only solution left is some sort of cull of a significant amount of the human population.
1 Like
I used to cycle across Bristol everyday for work around 2007-2010. The terror reduced dramatically once I bought a ridiculous hivis jacket, covered my bike in lights and started riding like a psycho, very aggressively. You kind of had to create this bubble of hate around you and it worked, the cars and buses gave you a noticabley wide birth.
I tried cycling in Sydney onceā¦ fuck that! Never againā¦
First 30 years of my life were car free. Never needed one. Know I live somewhat remotley in rural Australia, so unless I get a horseā¦ car is needed.
2 Likes
Yep, aggressive is the only way.
Iāve heard a few horror stories about riding in Australia.
Depends on the city. Adelaide was fine. Melbourne mixed. The nearest town to me is sort of ok, but you do have to claim the road and take zero shite from knobheads in V8 utes.
1 Like
Aka, 90% of Australian men.
1 Like
I think weāre well past the point of making the necessary changes to get things back to ānormalā. The bill came faster than even the science predicted and is very much here.
However, and Im sure you know this but just want to reiterate it, there is no demarcation point to our problems, no Rubicon to cross whereon one side is normality and the other is apocalypse. Our problems will only continue to compound and for that reason its important to keep fighting the good fight.
There has been a solid amount of progress made systemically imo - from divestment to new coal discouragement to stronger environmental protections to higher levels of awareness and discussion - relative to the efforts made by the powers who would rather not see anything change. So this idea of āfalse hopeā doesnāt given credit to how far a lot of these organizations how gotten.
And one last point: people are problematic, no question, but so are leaders, political and business both. Much mores so, in fact. These are the people winning from the status quo, not the people being hoodwinked. Its not enough to point the finger at private individuals and, in my person opinion, the group we should be spending more effort asking to join us as opposed to blaming. That latter effort should all be directed at leadership.
2 Likes
I actually agree with much of what youāre saying. There is no getting back to ānormalā, best we can hope for is attempting to limit the damage. As for pointing fingers at private individuals and assigning blame, perhaps it wasnāt clear but that wasnāt what I was aiming for.
Rather I was exploring an issue that I donāt see come up in conversation very often or even at all. Which is that despite needing people power to overcome those vested interests and enact change, much of the population still seems to be disinterested or dismissive, and the need to understand the reasons as to why opposition is still so strong in the face of a rapidly escalating crisis; because without that understanding there is little to no hope in getting them on side.
I also say āno hopeā because despite all those best efforts that have resulted in greater awareness and some amount of change (and will no doubt lead to more), the reality of the situation is that up until now it simply hasnāt been enough. If people canāt be gotten on side, and soon, then the combination of climate disaster with a shrinking global carrying capacity can only have one outcome. Apocalypse.
2 Likes
which scientists?
because there will eventually be (and almost are) two kinds of science.
-
USSR-style āscienceā for the masses, serving certain political interests. (current climate change hysteria is obviously supported by science of this kind.)
-
closed corporate science that wonāt repeal the laws of biology or physics (unlike its counterpart), but will keep their knowledge for themselves.
1 Like
Which science is it that has been sounding the alarm on CO2 emissions causing global warming for 70 years to the chagrin of the dominant political and corporate interests? I didnt think science like that would be allowed publication in the USSRā¦?
3 Likes
Yeah, the USSR analogyās a bit off, given that most of the Climate Science is asking some pretty difficult questions of governments, something that definitely would have been suppressed in the USSR.
2 Likes
i think the main question is: āhow soon do you want to impose carbon taxes?ā
Carbon tax is pretty weak sauce, tbh - merely indulgences for the worst sinners - and most of the experts - aside from neoliberals - argue, in addition to carbon tax, we go much, much further.
Anyway. The dominant powers have no love for climate science, who in fact have been off on how quickly the consequences have come (see Gulf Stream collapse)
3 Likes
Yeah, I get it, your country has a really upsetting and traumatic history when it comes to the state and the terror it can unleash.
None of these climate scientists are really working for any states though, and there are already a number of carbon taxes in a lot of countries and there have been for many decades, mostly without any great hysteria or fanfare because these facts have been known for a long time.
5 Likes