vsalon closed today

[Gsinill]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Yeah, France is a apocalyptic wasteland where guys with mohawks wearing assless chaps prowl the badlands looking for a tank of juice and stragglers huddle together in poorly built forts to protect themselves from the mutants.

Good luck getting your base load from solar and wind.

Fukushima
Chernobyl

[Kirk007]

Couple final thoughts re all of this before i take my own advice and go for a bike ride:

population, yeah way to many of us. I think we'll see a huge crash before we hit 11 billion.

Why is climate change such a hot button? I think redir has it right.

Decades ago the fossil fuel industry was aware of what was happening; was aware that the only serious way to stop the rise of greenhouse gas emissions was to use less fossil fuels; understood that their investment was at risk and driven by a system that rewards short term profit over long term planning, began a concerted and effective disinformation campaign. But for a brief time in the 70s when we could have made an effective course correction, you know, that time when President Carter was widely disparaged an an Un-American wimp for urging us to put on sweaters, the government has largely been in bed with the fossil fuel industry as our political leaders correctly realized that we the people don't like to sacrifice creature comforts and that a radical change could have huge economic impacts that would mean they would be out of power - "its the economy stupid." Having a government system without term limits, considering the human condition and our innate gravitation towards power and money, the fossil fuel industry found a willing and powerful partner who was willing to overlook its obligation to protect the commons and future generations.

There was another powerful interest group that the fossil fuel industry used - the religious right. Forgetting all the verse and scripture about caring for the earth, the mantra became one of "what hubris to suggest that man can change the climate; only god controls the climate." This then tied in well to the us vs. them tribalism pointed out by redir. It's the godless cretins who support abortion and who don't go to church that are stupid enough to think that we can change the climate.

But climate change is not some one off phenomena of the Creator, rather its simply the cumulative effects of billions of decisions made by billions of people. Not intentional decisions to lay waste to the earth, as Blown Reek's comment might be read to imply. Negligent, perhaps, but I think more often uninformed, misinformed and unintentional. Life is hard and making sacrifices for something you can't put your finger on and for which the bill may not come due in your lifetime - that's a big ask for humans.

Sadly that bill is coming due, and its coming fast and hard. Americans are abadoning their homes in Key West and other low lying communities. The southeast just dodged a huge bullet; the Bahamas were not so lucky, nor Houston and the Gulf Coast. This isn't going to stop, its going to get worse. And America will get off relatively easy compared to many, many of our fellow humans on earth.

What is profoundly sad to me is the current state in the U.S., where decisions that exacerbate climate change are made for no rational reason at all. And at least a majority of the Senate and a large percentage of Americans are seemingly ok with that; ok with sacrificing the lives and well being of their children and grandchildren and for what?

Ex. A: The Executive recently overturned a rule that required oil and gas companies to control methane emissions, a greehouse gas 4x more harmful than CO2. The rule required producers to install emissions capture equipment that put the methane gas back in pipes instead of being burned off into the atmosphere as a byproduct (flaring). Flaring is wasteful, harmful, and uneconomical. The big producers were not in favor of this change - they've largely made the investment in control technology and frankly it gives them a leg up against small mom and pop producers who had long opposed the rule as they didn't want to spend the money to control the emissions. So why was a rule that conserved an important natural resource, and that was not in the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry reversed? There's only one reason I can think of - the rule was implemented by that other guy. Ditto California's emissions regulations - so much for state's rights.

From my lawnchair, that's where we appear to be at in America. If your not currently underwater or preparing for the next storm, go ride your bike while you can and may you avoid all encounters with self absorbed drivers texting instead of watching out for others who are sharing the road.

We get outraged over these callous, thoughtless self absorbed drivers that put our lives in danger. Why aren't we just as outraged by our callous, thoughtless self absorbed politicians who show nothing but disdain for the lives of the rest of us?

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

It's the same with phony environmentalist who claim they want to protect the USA's wild places yet have allied themselves with party's who refuse to do anything about illegal immigration. Overuse and encroachment is the problem, not too few protected areas.

Sorry you are wrong - there are way too little protected areas, and its a global issue not a national one, species don't recognize the lines on the maps we draw. And we are a biological species - it's not just clean air, water, food and shelter we rely on. We are part of larger systems in which we evolved and the rapid decrease in biodiversity is a very real existential threat to humans (unless you believe that a full time diet of solyent green and escape pods to another planet are our solution).

But you are right that the reason we have far too little habitat is overuse, encroachment and above all overpopulation.

Where we really part ways though is your use of a tribalism fallacy and a false narrative about one of our two disfunctional political parties. Yes immigration is a HUGE issue but the issue isn't the innately bad hombre rapists and drug dealers coming for our daughters and children as some politicians would have us believe. It's the climate change driven phenomena of a growing and soon to be overwhelming dislocation of entire nations who will have literally nowhere else to go but to another country.

And lets break it down a bit more in terms the Republican party at least used to ike to flaunt - states rights. I live in a part of a country that is going to get off relatively light from climate change unless the mother of all earthquakes is triggered by climate change and we fall into the Pacific. And yeah, the majority of voters here are part of that party that in your view doesn't care about illegal immigration. But hey what if I and my fellow libtards don't particularly want all those humans from Florida and Texas and elsewhere fleeing their flooded homes and moving into our backyard and trashing the place, particularly if they belong to that other evil tribe of Americans who have denied climate change for decades - let them wallow in the mess they created. Now, I thought the political party that in your view is correctly aligned with illegal immigration was also a big proponent of states rights? What if all the phony democratic environmentalists like that Governor, Jay Inslee in the State of Washington said hell no to all the displaced climate denying Americans looking for a new home? You down with that? Is the party of fighting illegal immigration on board with a United States where respective tribes have their respective territories to defend with walls abnd if necessary with guns? And if not, then is there truly any difference in the approach we as a nation must take towards displaced people from other countries?

This isn't about one or the other political party being right or wrong. It's about what we do as humans stuck on the same little globe with 7 billion others, many of whom are losing their fundmental human needs of food, water and shelter. The idea that we can build a wall or otherwise barricade ourselves from the rest of the world and everything that's happening around us is simplistic naivete. But it does play well with many folks who are very scared and looking for easy answers and reassurance.

[Mzilliox]

the concept and term "virtue signalling" is so American, can we leave that one behind next year and just be real about things?

[NHAero]

Thank you Kirk007 for your clear-thinking and well-expressed posts.

Originally Posted by Kirk007

Couple final thoughts re all of this before i take my own advice and go for a bike ride:

population, yeah way to many of us. I think we'll see a huge crash before we hit 11 billion.

Why is climate change such a hot button? I think redir has it right.

Decades ago the fossil fuel industry was aware of what was happening; was aware that the only serious way to stop the rise of greenhouse gas emissions was to use less fossil fuels; understood that their investment was at risk and driven by a system that rewards short term profit over long term planning, began a concerted and effective disinformation campaign. But for a brief time in the 70s when we could have made an effective course correction, you know, that time when President Carter was widely disparaged an an Un-American wimp for urging us to put on sweaters, the government has largely been in bed with the fossil fuel industry as our political leaders correctly realized that we the people don't like to sacrifice creature comforts and that a radical change could have huge economic impacts that would mean they would be out of power - "its the economy stupid." Having a government system without term limits, considering the human condition and our innate gravitation towards power and money, the fossil fuel industry found a willing and powerful partner who was willing to overlook its obligation to protect the commons and future generations.

There was another powerful interest group that the fossil fuel industry used - the religious right. Forgetting all the verse and scripture about caring for the earth, the mantra became one of "what hubris to suggest that man can change the climate; only god controls the climate." This then tied in well to the us vs. them tribalism pointed out by redir. It's the godless cretins who support abortion and who don't go to church that are stupid enough to think that we can change the climate.

But climate change is not some one off phenomena of the Creator, rather its simply the cumulative effects of billions of decisions made by billions of people. Not intentional decisions to lay waste to the earth, as Blown Reek's comment might be read to imply. Negligent, perhaps, but I think more often uninformed, misinformed and unintentional. Life is hard and making sacrifices for something you can't put your finger on and for which the bill may not come due in your lifetime - that's a big ask for humans.

Sadly that bill is coming due, and its coming fast and hard. Americans are abadoning their homes in Key West and other low lying communities. The southeast just dodged a huge bullet; the Bahamas were not so lucky, nor Houston and the Gulf Coast. This isn't going to stop, its going to get worse. And America will get off relatively easy compared to many, many of our fellow humans on earth.

What is profoundly sad to me is the current state in the U.S., where decisions that exacerbate climate change are made for no rational reason at all. And at least a majority of the Senate and a large percentage of Americans are seemingly ok with that; ok with sacrificing the lives and well being of their children and grandchildren and for what?

Ex. A: The Executive recently overturned a rule that required oil and gas companies to control methane emissions, a greehouse gas 4x more harmful than CO2. The rule required producers to install emissions capture equipment that put the methane gas back in pipes instead of being burned off into the atmosphere as a byproduct (flaring). Flaring is wasteful, harmful, and uneconomical. The big producers were not in favor of this change - they've largely made the investment in control technology and frankly it gives them a leg up against small mom and pop producers who had long opposed the rule as they didn't want to spend the money to control the emissions. So why was a rule that conserved an important natural resource, and that was not in the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry reversed? There's only one reason I can think of - the rule was implemented by that other guy. Ditto California's emissions regulations - so much for state's rights.

From my lawnchair, that's where we appear to be at in America. If your not currently underwater or preparing for the next storm, go ride your bike while you can and may you avoid all encounters with self absorbed drivers texting instead of watching out for others who are sharing the road.

We get outraged over these callous, thoughtless self absorbed drivers that put our lives in danger. Why aren't we just as outraged by our callous, thoughtless self absorbed politicians who show nothing but disdain for the lives of the rest of us?

[Mzilliox]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

Sorry you are wrong - there are way too little protected areas, and its a global issue not a national one, species don't recognize the lines on the maps we draw. And we are a biological species - it's not just clean air, water, food and shelter we rely on. We are part of larger systems in which we evolved and the rapid decrease in biodiversity is a very real existential threat to humans (unless you believe that a full time diet of solyent green and escape pods to another planet are our solution).

But you are right that the reason we have far too little habitat is overuse, encroachment and above all overpopulation.

Where we really part ways though is your use of a tribalism fallacy and a false narrative about one of our two disfunctional political parties. Yes immigration is a HUGE issue but the issue isn't the innately bad hombre rapists and drug dealers coming for our daughters and children as some politicians would have us believe. It's the climate change driven phenomena of a growing and soon to be overwhelming dislocation of entire nations who will have literally nowhere else to go but to another country.

And lets break it down a bit more in terms the Republican party at least used to ike to flaunt - states rights. I live in a part of a country that is going to get off relatively light from climate change unless the mother of all earthquakes is triggered by climate change and we fall into the Pacific. And yeah, the majority of voters here are part of that party that in your view doesn't care about illegal immigration. But hey what if I and my fellow libtards don't particularly want all those humans from Florida and Texas and elsewhere fleeing their flooded homes and moving into our backyard and trashing the place, particularly if they belong to that other evil tribe of Americans who have denied climate change for decades - let them wallow in the mess they created. Now, I thought the political party that in your view is correctly aligned with illegal immigration was also a big proponent of states rights? What if all the phony democratic environmentalists like that Governor, Jay Inslee in the State of Washington said hell no to all the displaced climate denying Americans looking for a new home? You down with that? Is the party of fighting illegal immigration on board with a United States where respective tribes have their respective territories to defend with walls abnd if necessary with guns? And if not, then is there truly any difference in the approach we as a nation must take towards displaced people from other countries?

This isn't about one or the other political party being right or wrong. It's about what we do as humans stuck on the same little globe with 7 billion others, many of whom are losing their fundmental human needs of food, water and shelter. The idea that we can build a wall or otherwise barricade ourselves from the rest of the world and everything that's happening around us is simplistic naivete. But it does play well with many folks who are very scared and looking for easy answers and reassurance.

if you are in grants pass or close, i owe you a few beers, or tea, or whatever you want. sense and sense and more sense.

[Mzilliox]

why are people making this partisan? we all have to live here. scientists are just scientists with info, the info doesnt care if you vote for trump.

and whats this noise about phony environmentalists? they come from a place of worry and love, while "non-environmentalists" (why is there such a thing?) come from a place of profit and destruction. whose motives are more suspect?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Kirk007

Couple final thoughts re all of this before i take my own advice and go for a bike ride:

population, yeah way to many of us. I think we'll see a huge crash before we hit 11 billion.

Why is climate change such a hot button? I think redir has it right.

Decades ago the fossil fuel industry was aware of what was happening; was aware that the only serious way to stop the rise of greenhouse gas emissions was to use less fossil fuels; understood that their investment was at risk and driven by a system that rewards short term profit over long term planning, began a concerted and effective disinformation campaign. But for a brief time in the 70s when we could have made an effective course correction, you know, that time when President Carter was widely disparaged an an Un-American wimp for urging us to put on sweaters, the government has largely been in bed with the fossil fuel industry as our political leaders correctly realized that we the people don't like to sacrifice creature comforts and that a radical change could have huge economic impacts that would mean they would be out of power - "its the economy stupid." Having a government system without term limits, considering the human condition and our innate gravitation towards power and money, the fossil fuel industry found a willing and powerful partner who was willing to overlook its obligation to protect the commons and future generations.

There was another powerful interest group that the fossil fuel industry used - the religious right. Forgetting all the verse and scripture about caring for the earth, the mantra became one of "what hubris to suggest that man can change the climate; only god controls the climate." This then tied in well to the us vs. them tribalism pointed out by redir. It's the godless cretins who support abortion and who don't go to church that are stupid enough to think that we can change the climate.

But climate change is not some one off phenomena of the Creator, rather its simply the cumulative effects of billions of decisions made by billions of people. Not intentional decisions to lay waste to the earth, as Blown Reek's comment might be read to imply. Negligent, perhaps, but I think more often uninformed, misinformed and unintentional. Life is hard and making sacrifices for something you can't put your finger on and for which the bill may not come due in your lifetime - that's a big ask for humans.

Sadly that bill is coming due, and its coming fast and hard. Americans are abadoning their homes in Key West and other low lying communities. The southeast just dodged a huge bullet; the Bahamas were not so lucky, nor Houston and the Gulf Coast. This isn't going to stop, its going to get worse. And America will get off relatively easy compared to many, many of our fellow humans on earth.

What is profoundly sad to me is the current state in the U.S., where decisions that exacerbate climate change are made for no rational reason at all. And at least a majority of the Senate and a large percentage of Americans are seemingly ok with that; ok with sacrificing the lives and well being of their children and grandchildren and for what?

Ex. A: The Executive recently overturned a rule that required oil and gas companies to control methane emissions, a greehouse gas 4x more harmful than CO2. The rule required producers to install emissions capture equipment that put the methane gas back in pipes instead of being burned off into the atmosphere as a byproduct (flaring). Flaring is wasteful, harmful, and uneconomical. The big producers were not in favor of this change - they've largely made the investment in control technology and frankly it gives them a leg up against small mom and pop producers who had long opposed the rule as they didn't want to spend the money to control the emissions. So why was a rule that conserved an important natural resource, and that was not in the economic interests of the fossil fuel industry reversed? There's only one reason I can think of - the rule was implemented by that other guy. Ditto California's emissions regulations - so much for state's rights.

From my lawnchair, that's where we appear to be at in America. If your not currently underwater or preparing for the next storm, go ride your bike while you can and may you avoid all encounters with self absorbed drivers texting instead of watching out for others who are sharing the road.

We get outraged over these callous, thoughtless self absorbed drivers that put our lives in danger. Why aren't we just as outraged by our callous, thoughtless self absorbed politicians who show nothing but disdain for the lives of the rest of us?

Far and away one of the most consistently reasonable, insightful, and well-articulated voices on the Paceline.

Unfortunately, one of the sacrifices I had to make when having kids was to be much less "carbon neutral." I actually never owned a car (or a house) until I had kids, which was much later in life. Hard to see a way around this if you don't live centrally located in an urban environment.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

Yeah, France is a apocalyptic wasteland where guys with mohawks wearing assless chaps prowl the badlands looking for a tank of juice and stragglers huddle together in poorly built forts to protect themselves from the mutants.

Good luck getting your base load from solar and wind.

One of the best "snark artists" on the site. I don't happen to share your opinions, but your prose has got some zing.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

I'm talking climate change, you're talking politics. I think you missed the nuance in the "round vs flat" example.

There are no "believers" when it comes to the science of climate change... there's proof full stop. But there sure are deniers of the science of climate change and then there is politics on top of that. Politics, of course, touches everything.

I'm not interested in discussing politics... nor your politics... furthermore, I understand it ain't allowed round here so I'll abide.

Big props to you and Old Potato. Two vendors with the gumption to consistently get in the ring and express their opinions.

[fa63]

Actually, what is racist is to blame the world's future problems on the future Africans, who have had nothing to do with the situation that non-Africans have put the world in.

The same concept applies to the US telling China and India to curb their emissions: it was OK for us to pollute all these years (and continue to do so at a high rate) while achieving economic prosperity, but it is not OK for them to do the same. Do as I say, not as I do; what a priviliged position...

Originally Posted by CunegoFan

The moment someone mentions the very large elephant in the room, people start crying racism because the increase is mostly coming from Africa. The problem is too many people. Not addressing it is trying to solve a large problem by fixing up a few corner cases. It's why you cannot take any of this virtue signalling seriously.

[Blown Reek]

Keep in mind that there are people out there that think:

Originally Posted by a certain Paceline user

It’s a scam. Obama just bought a beachfront house, but he said sea levels would rise and everyone on the coasts would be under water.

Global warming, which had to be changed to climate change is a racket to bring about socialism and control our lives.

Remember global cooling scare from the 70s. Fear mongering and scare tactics.

And chances are, even though climate science isn't partisan, they eat what they've been fed. Goddamn ignorant sheep.

[NHAero]

Two more thoughts here:
1 -
There's no question that the fossil fuel industries are culpable, as has been eloquently expressed. Yet, people are the market for their goods. I'm 66. Since I was a kid, the average house size per person in the US has tripled; the miles driven per person has doubled; and we have a lot more stuff (to fill those bigger houses, but also, because of technology - I didn't have a laptop and iPad growing up :-)

There's a massive environmental impact of all of the above. Are we living happier, better, more rewarding lives because of this increased impact?

2 -
Policy and lobbying trumps physics and economics.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...gets-a-bailout

[fa63]

Good points. Consumers are to blame to a large degree, but it doesn't help when you have politicians making bad policies. An example is promoting urban sprawl with large houses and without alternates modes of transport, in turn resulting in more energy consumption and fuel use.

[NHAero]

We agree.
The only source of optimism I have personally is that I believe that deep down, almost all people want the same fundamental things. Sufficient physical/material inputs to maintain a healthy life (healthy food and shelter, clean water and air), access to good healthcare and education, safety/security from lawlessness and exploitation, and a sense that their lives are meaningful. (an extraordinary VR exhibit called The Enemy I saw a couple of years ago at MIT made this clear). What I hope for is that we all see that without massive changes in policies and practices on energy and food, and reductions in consumption, we are headed for a world where fewer of us will enjoy those fundamentals.

Originally Posted by fa63

Good points. Consumers are to blame to a large degree, but it doesn't help when you have politicians making bad policies. An example is promoting urban sprawl with large houses and without alternates modes of transport, in turn resulting in more energy consumption and fuel use.