Most effective way to stop global warming

[Dexta]

I was active in Extinction Rebellion for a time, but left the group after coming to realise their only real world reformatory policy was not feasible: bringing about a legally binding citizen's assembly on global warming (also known as overthrowing democracy). 

I'd like to be involved in the righteous battle against AGW (anthropogenic global warming) but it's really tough to know how best to fight the good fight. Any ideas?

[mordant]

I was active in Extinction Rebellion for a time, but left the group after coming to realise their only real world reformatory policy was not feasible: bringing about a legally binding citizen's assembly on global warming (also known as overthrowing democracy). 

I'd like to be involved in the righteous battle against AGW (anthropogenic global warming) but it's really tough to know how best to fight the good fight. Any ideas?

Your are not the first person to realize that humanity as a species is never going to change except at the point of the sword -- a very BIG sword. Which, as ever, solves one problem and then creates three new ones which may ultimately be even worse, if that's possible.

I do not believe in saving humanity but only individual humans, beginning with yours truly. So I have solar panels and batteries and have done various things to minimize energy waste and if it were just me and not my wife and stepson I would probably retreat to a very small and simple life in a very small and simple abode, probably out in the sticks and back off the road somewhere.

I know that's not sexy and runs counter to the delusion that salvation can be found in anything, be it god, technology, knowledge or even rationality. Not at the species level, no. Not really at the individual level even, other than just being true to your self and not striving to be something you're not.

[Inkubus]

The only possible way out is to build nukes and start building them now but the only group of people who can pay for them, won't.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with his figure: 1% of people own 99% of wealth.

The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth $42 trillion created since 2020, almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population...

Since 2020, the richest 1% have captured almost two-thirds of all new wealth – nearly twice as much money as the bottom 99% of the world’s population.
Billionaire fortunes are increasing by $2.7bn a day, even as inflation outpaces the wages of at least 1.7 billion workers, more than the population of India.
Food and energy companies more than doubled their profits in 2022, paying out $257bn to wealthy shareholders, while over 800 million people went to bed hungry.
Only 4 cents in every dollar of tax revenue comes from wealth taxes, and half the world’s billionaires live in countries with no inheritance tax on money they give to their children.Link

Now if anyone suggests carbon capture and storage or planting trees then that is a clear indication that they don't understand the extent of the problem.

[Dexta]

Changing government policy seems key to me, but how the fuck can you do that? Sure, I have a relatively small ecological impact as I'd be wracked with guilt otherwise, but I'm just one person - all my colleagues jump on planes for foreign holidays multiple times a year FFS - we're not on the same page...or even in the same library, it would seem.

[Minimalist]

I do not think there is a solution to this prioblem...at least not one with a chance in hell of being implemented.

Humanity will take a major hit from climate change.  And in a couple of centuries we'll recover enough to fuck it up all over again.

[PopeyesPappy]

Any ideas?

Get rid of people.

[Kathryn L]

I think endorsing more of a plant-based lifestyle is one way.  I really enjoyed the documentary Cowspiracy, even though it wasn't as scientifically rigorous as I would've liked.  It still highlighted some major facts which showed that humans and their use of electricity or their carbon footprint is not really so much of the problem as it is the environmental cost that it takes to to feed a nation some form of meat.  I don't necessarily believe that humans need to eat meat in order to be healthy, or certainly not the amount that we are eating it at.

I think much of the problem is consumerism and having a society which values creating goods for the generation of income.  The first world doesn't really see that having happiness does not have to be centered on owning or purchasing the next product.  You can do so many other things like go for a walk, or go for a swim, spend time at the park, go outside, be involved with nature, spend time with your family and friends, help other people who are in need, teach, etc.  Offering services instead of goods might be one way to create a shift towards an economy that isn't so environmentally damaging.

I also think the creation of luxury products and living a life of luxury is a huge problem even though it's only one percent of the nation that can really afford to live this way.  I do think having some sort of cap on how much money you can earn might be the best way to create a more balanced economy or class system.  I'm not sure creating luxury items is beneficial for the environment or sends a good message to those who are poorer or less fortunate about what is healthy or desirable in life.  In my mind, you need a car not a Lamborghini.

[Minimalist]

The first world doesn't really see that having happiness does not have to be centered on owning or purchasing the next product. 

The whole point of the constant barrage of advertising we are subjected to is to create that belief.

[Dancefortwo]

We bought a electric car 6 months ago and it's been an amazing experience.  It's a KIA EV 6 Wind.  We've charged it at home and we can't really see much difference between our electric bill from last year to this year.   From what I understand the battery will last between 10 to 20 years.  

I try to sew my own clothes out of natural materials instead of polyester, which is basically fossil fuel.  Linen has the least envrionmental impact, cotton has the most. Wool and silk aren't too bad, but polyesters micro fibers are in the oceans and are now working their way up the food chain.    

I know vegans get upset about animal leather but one of the biggest problems is that today's shoes are all man made from petroleum sources and they don't break down in landfills.  It's actually better to buy leather shoes.  When you throw them out they break down.

If you walk down the toy isle this Christmas everything, and I mean everything is plastic.  And all those millions of plastic toys will eventually end up in a landfill for the next 500 years or so.  Wooden toys are a thing of the past.

[Kathryn L]

The whole point of the constant barrage of advertising we are subjected to is to create that belief.

I think advertising should be limited in some way.  I'm pretty sure if a product is important enough in their lives, people will manage to find it, instead of thinking that buying products is a good or beneficial past time.  People didn't use to shop as a hobby in the past as we do today.  I think they kind of shopped when they needed something rather than for fun.  I liked it when I was in Germany.  Advertising on television wasn't something that occurred every 10 minutes a show was on.  It was more like every 30 minutes and it lasted for 15 minutes.  So, if a show was 45 minutes long, you had 15 minutes break for advertisements, and people walked away from the TV around that time so they didn't have to look at them.  There were also legal limits on pharmaceutical companies advertising to people because doctors there understood how dangerous it was for people to think they need a certain medication without the oversight of a doctor, but that's another story.

[Minimalist]

I think advertising should be limited in some way. 

I agree with you and employ the MUTE button extensively for that purpose.  Sometimes I forget to turn the sound back on because the news in the US is normally such tripe that it isn't worth listening to, either.




BTW, only the US and New Zealand allow direct drug advertising to consumers.  New Zealand surprises me; they are normally smarter than that.  The US of course is run by drug company oligarchs ( among others ) so nothing is a surprise!

[Kathryn L]

BTW, only the US and New Zealand allow direct drug advertising to consumers.  New Zealand surprises me; they are normally smarter than that.  The US of course is run by drug company oligarchs ( among others ) so nothing is a surprise!

Oooh, good to know. Glad to see the whole world isn't crazy!

[pattylt]

I think advertising should be limited in some way. 

I agree with you and employ the MUTE button extensively for that purpose.  Sometimes I forget to turn the sound back on because the news in the US is normally such tripe that it isn't worth listening to, either.




BTW, only the US and New Zealand allow direct drug advertising to consumers.  New Zealand surprises me; they are normally smarter than that.  The US of course is run by drug company oligarchs ( among others ) so nothing is a surprise!

It didn’t used to be allowed (drug ads) just over the counter stuff.  I don’t remember the year it changed but now, I laugh at all the side effects they’re required to list (quickly and quietly).

[Fireball]

^ I call that "talking fine print".

[Minimalist]

I agree with you and employ the MUTE button extensively for that purpose.  Sometimes I forget to turn the sound back on because the news in the US is normally such tripe that it isn't worth listening to, either.




BTW, only the US and New Zealand allow direct drug advertising to consumers.  New Zealand surprises me; they are normally smarter than that.  The US of course is run by drug company oligarchs ( among others ) so nothing is a surprise!

It didn’t used to be allowed (drug ads) just over the counter stuff.  I don’t remember the year it changed but now, I laugh at all the side effects they’re required to list (quickly and quietly).

The law which allowed it was enacted in 2007 - under Dubya, of course - and they have been screwing with the regulations ever since.  

The big thing was that they were supposed to present all the ways these drugs can kill consumers in the same way they trumpet the alleged benefits.

As noted here:  the other thing is that there is not supposed to be any distration while the major announcement is given.
https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/al...nformation

1. During the major statement, the ad does not include audio or visual elements, alone or in combination, that are likely to interfere with comprehension. This standard addresses the statutory requirement to ensure the major statement is clear and conspicuous by limiting distracting audio or visual elements during the major statement. This standard does not categorically prohibit any specific types of elements during the major statement, such as music, sound effects, or drawings. Additionally, the standard does not categorically prohibit visual depictions of benefits or positive imagery during presentation of the major statement. Rather, FDA will take a holistic approach to determine whether the major statement has elements that distract or otherwise interfere with a consumer’s ability to adequately understand the content being presented.
   

Of course, the enforcement of that provision has been so shitty that we end up with shit like this.




Hence....I'm wearing out the Mute button on my remote.

[pattylt]

I used to have a TiVo…it had commercial skip on any recorded shows. I really miss that. Our dozing off to sleep each night is watching Fururama and the same commercials are shown every break, night after night. You know that deodorant cream commercial? There’s two different (?) products by the same person…one guarantees 72 hours and the other product doesn’t. Besides hating the commercials themselves, I’m now to the point I want to strangle that woman…she annoys the hell out of me.

It really can’t be an effective strategy to show the same commercials over and over ad nauseum, can it? I wouldn’t buy any of the products shown at this point.

[mordant]

I used to have a TiVo…it had commercial skip on any recorded shows.  I really miss that.  Our dozing off to sleep each night is watching Fururama and the same commercials are shown every break, night after night.  You know that deodorant cream commercial?  There’s two different (?) products by the same person…one guarantees 72 hours and the other product doesn’t.  Besides hating the commercials themselves, I’m now to the point I want to strangle that woman…she annoys the hell out of me.

It really can’t be an effective strategy to show the same commercials over and over ad nauseum, can it?  I wouldn’t buy any of the products shown at this point.

The good news is that the same commercials playing over and over is because they can't find enough advertisers. Although I think they have understood it's making people homicidal and so I notice that some channels are just playing pictures of nature with soothing music in those slots where they don't have an advertiser.

I solve the problem by watching no television at all. But my wife indulges from time to time and I'm in the same room usually [sigh]

[pattylt]

We rarely watch TV except for an hour near bedtime…it’s mindless and relaxes us both. I couldn’t begin to tell anyone what’s on at prime time. We’re both heavy readers.

[mordant]

We rarely watch TV except for an hour near bedtime…it’s mindless and relaxes us both.  I couldn’t begin to tell anyone what’s on at prime time.  We’re both heavy readers.

I do enjoy a movie once a week or something. On Thanksgiving evening we had the pleasure of re-watching Fiddler on the Roof, which my stepson had somehow never seen. He tends to be way too much the intellectual for a musical, but he got involved in it despite himself. A good time was had by all ... but even there, we nearly got roped into a version of the movie with commercials. I think we paid $3 to make that go away. There's something really perverse about that.

[pattylt]

There's something really perverse about that.

I don’t really think so. Providing a show for free still has incurred costs for the network or station. We “pay” for it by suffering through commercials which does pay their bills. To pay a fee to be commercial free, we bypass the dreaded commercials but help their network costs. There isn’t any free entertainment. It has to be paid for somewhere in the chain.

Part of the problem is that we’ve come to expect free stuff. Gmail is “free” to us but Google sells data to pay for it. The same with most free services. The only way to avoid data collection or fees is to just not use it.

[adey67]

I'm going to get crucified for this but, here goes, for measures to have any appreciable effect we need Russia, China and India as the worst emitters on board, however for reasons that should be obvious to a blind man that's unlikely to happen, currently China is building on average one new coal fired power station a week.

We also need to have an honest discussion about the viability of so called green energy (aka renewables) my son is a solar panel technician in Australia, apparently it takes on average 7 years optimal use for a solar panel to work off it's manufacturing carbon footprint they're also hideously polluting to manufacture. Wind turbine manufacture uses vast quantities of steel (sometimes carbon fibre too) and concrete, the cement for which liberates gargantuan quantities of carbon dioxide during manufacture, then there's electric cars the lithium and cobalt for which is often strip mined causing a lot of pollution and environmental damage and in many countries is mined using exploitative child labour plus they keep bursting into flames for some reason. Unfortunately green energy it would appear isn't actually that green plus what do we do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

Now before you all completely lose your shit at me please understand I am NOT a climate change denier, I absolutely believe the science of anthropogenic climate change I have my own extremely good reasons for knowing it's real based on 56 years of being alive on this planet and observing drastic changes to the weather patterns, I'm just not convinced we are going to be able to do anything meaningful about it before the tipping point, to do so would require international cooperation unparalleled in human history (not going to happen unfortunately) in fact I reckon it would actually require a one world government (again something that just ain't gonna happen ). So I'm sorry to be a Jeremiah but I'm pretty much certain it's already way too late, I'm just glad I'll be dead before the worst of it impacts the planet, be grateful for small mercies as my old mum says. Ok you can all kill me now .

[Fireball]

 You're right. Though China is going gangbusters on solar power. to wit:

[Inkubus]

I'm going to get crucified for this but, here goes, for measures to have any appreciable effect we need Russia, China and India as the worst emitters on board, however for reasons that should be obvious to a blind man that's unlikely to happen, currently China is building on average one new coal fired power station a week.

We also need to have an honest discussion about the viability of so called green energy (aka renewables) my son is a solar panel technician in Australia, apparently it takes on average 7 years optimal use for a solar panel to work off it's manufacturing carbon footprint they're also hideously polluting to manufacture. Wind turbine manufacture uses vast quantities of steel (sometimes carbon fibre too) and concrete, the cement for which liberates gargantuan quantities of carbon dioxide during manufacture, then there's electric cars the lithium and cobalt for which is often strip mined causing a lot of pollution and environmental damage and in many countries is mined using exploitative child labour plus they keep bursting into flames for some reason. Unfortunately green energy it would appear isn't actually that green plus what do we do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

Now before you all completely lose your shit at me please understand I am NOT a climate change denier, I absolutely believe the science of anthropogenic climate change I have my own extremely good reasons for knowing it's real based on 56 years of being alive on this planet and observing drastic changes to the weather patterns, I'm just not convinced we are going to be able to do anything meaningful about it before the tipping point, to do so would require international cooperation unparalleled in human history (not going to happen unfortunately) in fact I reckon it would actually require a one world government (again something that just ain't gonna happen ). So I'm sorry to be a Jeremiah but I'm pretty much certain it's already way too late, I'm just glad I'll be dead before the worst of it impacts the planet, be grateful for small mercies as my old mum says. Ok you can all kill me now .

No. Kudos for Being a realist.

[adey67]

I'm going to get crucified for this but, here goes, for measures to have any appreciable effect we need Russia, China and India as the worst emitters on board, however for reasons that should be obvious to a blind man that's unlikely to happen, currently China is building on average one new coal fired power station a week.

We also need to have an honest discussion about the viability of so called green energy (aka renewables) my son is a solar panel technician in Australia, apparently it takes on average 7 years optimal use for a solar panel to work off it's manufacturing carbon footprint they're also hideously polluting to manufacture. Wind turbine manufacture uses vast quantities of steel (sometimes carbon fibre too) and concrete, the cement for which liberates gargantuan quantities of carbon dioxide during manufacture, then there's electric cars the lithium and cobalt for which is often strip mined causing a lot of pollution and environmental damage and in many countries is mined using exploitative child labour plus they keep bursting into flames for some reason. Unfortunately green energy it would appear isn't actually that green plus what do we do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

Now before you all completely lose your shit at me please understand I am NOT a climate change denier, I absolutely believe the science of anthropogenic climate change I have my own extremely good reasons for knowing it's real based on 56 years of being alive on this planet and observing drastic changes to the weather patterns, I'm just not convinced we are going to be able to do anything meaningful about it before the tipping point, to do so would require international cooperation unparalleled in human history (not going to happen unfortunately) in fact I reckon it would actually require a one world government (again something that just ain't gonna happen ). So I'm sorry to be a Jeremiah but I'm pretty much certain it's already way too late, I'm just glad I'll be dead before the worst of it impacts the planet, be grateful for small mercies as my old mum says. Ok you can all kill me now .

No. Kudos for Being a realist.

Thanks mate much appreciated.

[adey67]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing#/search

Then there's this nutty problem ^^^ which is way more widespread than I think anyone realises, if people won't change if they won't be honest and genuine about the need to do more, if their going to cheat and obfuscate what chance do we honestly have?