Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread - The Bear and Badger

Diluted Dante

To be clear I didn't mean for 10 minutes. I meant until it can be powered by zero carbon electricity.

Funkstain

Funkstain wrote:

Paul the sparky wrote:

Like, no matter what you do, you could always do more. There's not a reachable limit is there? [...] It just wouldn't really make a difference if they did. No point in owning that unless you want to flagellate yourself over the guilt

There is a reachable limit, by which I mean there is a reachable tipping point - the point at which if x millions of people are at this tipping point then systematic change starts to happen. So the bit we disagree on is not the obvious (you can always do more), it's the "it wouldn't really make a difference". I believe that if enough people did enough then it would.

I'm quoting myself like a maniac but this is the bit I'd like to focus on. If you don't wanna that's cool, but it's the only bit I'm interested in.

Funkstain

The 'tipping point' isn't based on everyone dong the same beneficial thing or reducing the same harmful thing. it's an accumulation of individual actions (with lots of overlap - obviously not 1B people doing 1B different things...), so it's not about everyone being forced to eat mushrooms which are delicious btw, it's just about enough people doing enough.

LivDiv

Ok. I think Funk needs some help here so feel free to correct me if Im wrong here Funk.
We are talking about a specific type of people who...

A. Believe climate change is real.
B. Know of specific steps they could take and are correct on that info.
C. Have the means to do so.
D. Don't.

Then the point being argued is if enough of those people did those things it WOULD make a difference.

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure

That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.

hunk

Don't forget there's also a time limit to reach that tipping point.

Funkstain

thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on

a) what is enough people
b) what are the things

but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point

I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do

Funkstain

hunk wrote:

Don't forget there's also a time limit to reach that tipping point.

well yes you're right - but I've repeatedly said that a) we're probably already past it and b) even if we weren't I doubt we'd reach it before it's too late
that's not my mental kink

monkey

Most people will make changes where they can when it doesn't create big impacts on them personally.
They would be persuaded to make those changes that do affect them personally if they thought everyone else was. ie my sacrifice isn't pointless.

So again, you need the collective action to spur individual changes.

Funkstain

monkey wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure

That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.

really? so you're saying (if you allow me to extend your point to its conclusion) we cannot take positive action because we have absolutely no way to gauge if we are, in fact, taking positive action? You believe that (say) flying or driving less is unclear in its benefits? or that not eating red meat, almost regardless of what we could replace it with, isn't a net positive? I mean I'm not asking for an exact weighing up - I'm asking for whether the scale is balanced or goes one way or the other. I'm fairly damn certain that giving up meat, almost regardless of what I replace it with, shows the balance scales net positive to environment. Disagree?

handsofblue

monkey wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure

That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.

Thank you! This is what I was trying (badly I guess) to say about our individual choices!

Real example of our unintended environmental impact of seemingly good choices: CFCs. Still dealing with the fallout from that over 3 decades (maybe?) after use was banned. What stopped it's use? Evidence and regulation.

From Dante's example, did you know that zero carbon energy companies can achieve this not through direct use of green energy sources but by buying carbon offsetting credits. Which come from where? Dunno, not looked into it. But a great way for energy companies to greenwash their reputation and gain consumers that try to behave ethically.

We now need concerted action from people, governments and countries. This isn't a problem that the whole population of the UK or Europe or the US or China or India will solve on their own. It needs a global approach or else companies will just run to countries with less regulation. And there is no incentive for short sighted governments to legislate for less fossil fuel useage.

LivDiv

Funkstain wrote:

thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on a) what is enough people b) what are the things but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do

Yeah I would agree there.
It opens they question of why don't they?
Otherwise its a dead end.

dynamiteReady

Might be relevant. Henry Ford himself considered environmental issues, and actually tried to push solutions:

https://themeaningofwater.com/2020/10/03/henry-fords-hemp-cars/

Diluted Dante

handsofblue wrote:

And there is no incentive for short sighted governments to legislate for less fossil fuel useage.

I mean there is. At least in the UK. It's cheaper, can be delivered quicker creates high skilled jobs generally in areas that need 'levelling up" to use the current parlance.

handsofblue

That assumes the UK govt cares about skilling up workers for domestic energy production rather than lining their pockets from Russian oligarchs.

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

monkey wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

Arguing ignorance about this (bamboo worse than plastic, discuss) is another way of abrogating responsibility. You could look into it. You could understand the answers to at least some of your questions. And you could believe your instincts, to some extent: bamboo manufacture is almost certainly better than plastic manufacture. But sure

That's exactly the problem. If you look into it, you're none the wiser. You're just going on some assumption that bamboo > plastic. It's decisions made in the vague instinct zone that brands have exploited for decades and lets them get away with greenwashing. But there's a hundred other considerations and you, as an individual, are unable to make an informed choice about it.

really? so you're saying (if you allow me to extend your point to its conclusion) we cannot take positive action because we have absolutely no way to gauge if we are, in fact, taking positive action? You believe that (say) flying or driving less is unclear in its benefits? or that not eating red meat, almost regardless of what we could replace it with, isn't a net positive? I mean I'm not asking for an exact weighing up - I'm asking for whether the scale is balanced or goes one way or the other. I'm fairly damn certain that giving up meat, almost regardless of what I replace it with, shows the balance scales net positive to environment. Disagree?

No I said individual action was slapdash which probably isn't the best word. It's very flawed and, a lot of the time, you may be unwittingly doing more harm than good. The examples you've picked are very well known and pretty clear cut.
Flying somewhere vs not flying is clearly pretty straightforward. Doing almost anything versus not doing it is going to be similar.
Red meat vs any equivalent protein source is less straightforward eg see problems with Amazon deforestation and tofu production but still red meat is one of the worst offenders.

Everyone can do more. That's fine. But there's problems with making those choices at an individual level because you're completely in the dark about the real impact of your decisions.

Diluted Dante

handsofblue wrote:

That assumes the UK govt cares about skilling up workers for domestic energy production rather than lining their pockets from Russian oligarchs.

They don't need to care about the actual workers. It's a cold hearted political calculation about winning votes.

Liz Truss can, if she wants, deliver within the remainder of the current Parliament a massive expansion of renewable energy, and campaign on the green credentials of having done that, the economic impact of having put money back in peoples pockets by cutting energy bills from this, created new employment with these new high skilled jobs, which also expand the tax base and remove people from welfare programs.

She doesn't need to give a single fuck about of the things she'd be campaigning on there, just that by doing so she can win votes and remain as Prime Minister.

Paul the sparky

I don't think individual choices got us into this shit. We had to get organized and combine our efforts into systems capable of affecting environment on such a scale. So I think that's the only way to pull us out of it.

Change the way things are working to benefit the environment instead of fucking it up. No, I've not got a clue where that starts before you ask, but that's the way out

handsofblue

@dante, I suppose that just needs to be backed up with action when she hits the ground day 1

Funkstain

LivDiv wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on a) what is enough people b) what are the things but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do

Yeah I would agree there. It opens they question of why don't they? Otherwise its a dead end.

human nature? i mean it does open that question: why don't I do more / less when I'm aware of the net good it could do, and, a bit like voting, it does make a difference if everyone does it, but everyone including me has to do it for it to make a difference. lazy, selfish, avoidant thinking, misplaced in faith in tech to come up with a miracle?

dynamiteReady

This is why I advocate action, but under the banner of directly observable metrics.

Like, biodiversity and not breathing in chemicals should be more than good enough reasons for this. Rather than constantly pushing for a policy direction that raises so many questions, for people with less faith than found ITT.

LivDiv

Funkstain wrote:

LivDiv wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

thanks liv. yes, that's it, really. there can be a lot of debate on a) what is enough people b) what are the things but I trust anyone here with the intelligence to understand enough about their actions and consequences and research that they COULD do much more, and arguably that would be enough to hit that tipping point I'm not sure why, I'm working out a mental kink I think, but for some reason it's important to me that we acknowledge that 'D. Don't.' point better than we do

Yeah I would agree there. It opens they question of why don't they? Otherwise its a dead end.

human nature? i mean it does open that question: why don't I do more / less when I'm aware of the net good it could do, and, a bit like voting, it does make a difference if everyone does it, but everyone including me has to do it for it to make a difference. lazy, selfish, avoidant thinking, misplaced in faith in tech to come up with a miracle?

Its a big old question likely with a good number of answers.

Your answers are almost certainly true for some (although I'm turned off by lazy, selfish etc just opens up more why). I can appreciate you have rattled those of quickly.

Another quite simple answer is people feeling they have done their part, made their sacrifices while others have not.
For example it could be hard to swallow giving up a meal you like when seeing celebs or the Prime Minister get a lear jet to have a weekend on the coast. Not an unreasonable reaction if unhelpful.

Human nature I think could be expanded to our penchant for self destructive behaviour.
Over the past 18 months i have put a lot of effort into sorting myself out in regards to that type of behaviour at a personal level, mainly giving up drink and sorting out my diet/exercise. It has kindled an interest in the why.
Particularly the booze but also diet. A lot of answers around booze end up leading to religion and spirituality which I have no time for so I sought out more scientific and social answers for the booze but also why I am eating shite. I think quite a bit of that could probably fall into this discussion as well. In particular there is much of our surroundings, environmental cues, upbringing and of course marketing that drive us to decisions that go against our better judgement or true desires. There is raw science in there as well, genes that make us lean one way or another that cant decide for us but can make resistance to temptation tougher.

I'll have to have a think and type up something once Ive gathered my thoughts on it.

Funkstain

Yes this is a lot more along the lines of thinking I was trying to explain.

What is personal responsibility? To what extent can it be said to exist, in terms of self, control, consequences deserved or otherwise? I feel like there is enough known about environmental damage that can encourage us to change our behaviour and that not doing so is a choice (to the extent we are free to make choices!), and yet so few of us (including me) actually do that.

And yes the parallels with other behaviours: bad eating, drinking mind altering poison, no exercise despite the constant barrage of information that this shit will kill you quick and make you live poorly. Look forward to your post.

LivDiv

I shared this before in another thread a while back but I think its a fascinating lecture that feeds into this discussion. Even if specifically about obesity I think quite a bit can be extrapolated from it to understand true free will. Lets face it obesity isn't good for the environment anyway, other than killing us quicker I guess, so at even at a surface level it has some relevance.

LivDiv

This is also a great lecture. Just finished her book which this lecture covers a lot of.
It is primarily about drug addiction, including legal drugs like caffeine or alcohol. However it effectively explains dopamine responses and learned triggers for that response.
If we can accept that these things that are bad for the environment can also trigger dopamine rushes (are a short term positive) we can get somewhere to understanding. A flight for a holiday isn't the same as scoring drugs of course so the response wont be as strong nor as common but still there.

poprock

Apologies if I’m risking a derail of the ongoing good conversation here, but this is a fine piece of writing.

https://eand.co/were-not-going-to-make-it-to-2050-5398cf97b805

I think hyperbole and scaremongering is the appropriate response to the world we find ourselves in now. I’ll cherrypick some paragraphs below, in case it’s tl;dr.

We’re not going to make it to 2050.

What we are doing is inadequate. You don’t have to think too hard about it. Our civilization’s attempts to combat Extinction so far have resulted in…this. This dystopia we currently live in, where Europe’s on fire, inflation’s spiking, Covid never goes away, and all the rest of it. Our efforts are self-evidently inadequate. Things are this bad right now. Go ahead, and think about 2025. And shudder. Most of us can’t even imagine the world in 2030, or 2040. Will there even be one? What will be left of this thing we once called civilization?

We need to act now. What needs to be done? What an exasperating question. You know what needs to be done — pundits have just taught you to play dumb. We all know what needs to be done. We need a massive, massive wave of investment, now. To rebuild systems that are failing. Systems, this time, that last for a millennia. To figure out how to get clean water, clean energy, steel, iron, cement, fertilizer, without fossil fuels. We need to invest in a pan-Covid vaccine, and keep the next ones at bay. We need agricultural systems that can survive the killing heat. We need to give everyone on planet earth an education, an income, healthcare, to prevent tomorrow’s fascisms, pandemics, demagogues.

We need to do all this stuff. Pundits and leaders are clowns. They’re sitting there overthinking it, so that they have an excuse for inaction. But do you enjoy living in the 2020s? Like the megafires, inflation, never-ending pandemic, demagogues, lunatics, heat? Go ahead and tell me you want more of this. That’s what I thought. Nobody sane does. There’s no need to overthink it.

LivDiv

Honestly.
I don't see that approach as all that different to things that have been said for years.
It comes across as naggy. Then asks people to not listen to those who aren't being naggy.

You don't win people over or get them to change by making them feel like an absolute piece of shit or scaring them into paralysis.

It hasn't worked for decades it isn't going to suddenly work now.

MattyJ

Hey look all those things she mentions are not things I can personally do!

monkey

We need to give everyone on planet earth an education, an income, healthcare, to prevent tomorrow’s fascisms, pandemics, demagogues.

This isn't even anything to do with climate change.

Diluted Dante

Also what's this shite?

We all know what needs to be done. What’s missing is the will. The left is too busy debating pronouns to care about the fate of life on the planet. The center is too busy terrified of the right — and too busy laughing at the left — to lift a finger to save much of anything. The right, meanwhile, has figured out that scapegoating vulnerable groups is a magic spell that enchants working classes even more effectively than Marvel Superheroes in dumb outfits.

I don't know who that was written for to be honest. I don't know what it was trying to achieve.

We need to act now. What needs to be done? What an exasperating question. You know what needs to be done — pundits have just taught you to play dumb. We all know what needs to be done. We need a massive, massive wave of investment, now. To rebuild systems that are failing. Systems, this time, that last for a millennia. To figure out how to get clean water, clean energy, steel, iron, cement, fertilizer, without fossil fuels.

Oh I'll get right on that then.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories