Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by editor, Oct 10, 2018.
I think everyone should use public transport and nobody should have a car
I think people should stop moving.
Yeah that's fine when your home is in a location where you have that choice. I'm not talking about rural areas, in the home counties there's loads of developments 2, 3, 4 bed houses being built and not a bus stop in sight, commuters drive to train stations to then go to work.
I'm coming round to thinking that the past fifty years or so may turn out to have been some increasingly weird aberration at the end of which people were able to do things like have honeymoons in China and cars got bigger and bigger and people covered half their plates with meat.
I remember my first Berni meal: that 7oz steak was fucking enormous, and not just because I was 12. When we sat down to a chicken dinner, eight people shared a chicken that would do for two these days; obviously it was padded out with spuds, veg, bread sauce and so on.
As a side note it's interesting that in Spanish what English calls 'chicken with rice' is 'rice with chicken'.
It's indicative of an attitude that wouldn't be that hard to get back to. Which may be forced on us.
The same applies to grasping the sheer unnecessary size of modern Fiat 500s and the like. Or the dawning realisation that it's possible to live a full life without travelling halfway round the world.
This is not an exercise in pointless nostalgia, lots of the past was horrible and drear, but it may be that 'after' when it comes is going to a bit like 'before' in some ways.
Never mind Fiat 500s, what about every flippin' 4x4, there's really no need for these monstrosities in a city, or the suburbs. You go to any public car park and the spaces marked out are increasingly too small for the ridiculous size of cars that get made these days.
There was a protest group in France called something like 'Degonflers' - (deflaters) that would deflate the tyres of peoples 4x4s in their driveways. Apparently just letting the tyres down in France is not seen as causing criminal damage, or it wasn't at the time. A good idea I thought.
Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals
First article is from last year but is doing the rounds again
It’s Already Here
The Emergency Brake
Any meaningful reduction is good. People who tell you that you have to be 100% vegan or nothing understand neither how numbers work nor how communicating with human people works.
Yes this - any changes need to be systemic - and really need to include massively changing industrial processes and curbing consumption by the capitalist class and probably outright revolution. Guilting low and moderate or income people into changing their diet without even referencing shops, supply systems, and policy is bullshit.
I really don't think these things are either systemic change from above or collective campaigning or individual action. It has to be all of them. Greater availability of plant based options are only taking off because there is demand. We might only start seeing the repurposing of agriculture away from meat once demand starts to fall. I don't think we should either pretend that this can be solved through guilt tripping people or that everyone should sit back and wait for capitalism to collapse / radically change itself.
I read an article recently that said that 50% of the emissions caused by "lifestyle" choices are caused by 10% of the population, and of those, the people in the top 1-2% produce half of that. The richest in America emits 10 times the amount of the poorest. Tasking low income people to make changes isn't where you're going to be able to reduce emissions in an efficient way anyway. Would it hurt if everyone became vegan? Absolutely not. It would help "some", but the big reductions are all out of the hands of the poor.
I have in the past put a lot of time to trying. It is a complete and utter waste of time here.
I may be delusional but I hope science finds a way to sort this out because if we have to rely on humans stopping doing things like driving, flying and eating meat...I don't think we will manage to fix this.
I'm down to eating any kind of meat only once a week for one meal. (Ot does happen to sonetimes be a FIB though)
And I am not so good at cutting back on cheese. It is my favourite food.
Inequality, the race for endless "economic growth" and what follow from them are imo the two biggest immediate existential threats we face.
Looking forward (not really) to the bourgeois state cynically adopting neo-Malthusian policies and issuing reproductive licences to the "deserving" as a means of social control. They'll have "the science" to back them up (and you can't argue with "the facts" now can you?), and all sorts of evil cunts and useful idiots will defend that shit. Pentti Linkola will be proud, assuming he's still around by the time that happens.
It probably is delusional. Sorting it out is likely going to require fancy science and humans eating less meat, flying less etc.
And (with political will) I don't see that it's that hard to see how it would be achieved. There are only really two options - either some form of carbon rationing so we can each choose whether to spend it on a bit of bacon or towards a flight etc, or through carbon pricing so the vast majority of us just can't afford those things any more and the very rich carry on regardless. Or some mix of the two.
For meat specifically it's not just the carbon impact that is likely to see the price go way higher - it's the associated pressures on land and water use. We won't be relying on humans choosing to eat less, they will just be forced to through price unless collectively people push for a fairer system.
I've always thought you were a worthwhile poster. While I don't always agree with you, I usually find what you post something to consider.
Ah, here's one of the articles I recall reading that reports that it's a relatively small number of people/companies that emit most of the greenhouse gases. Nothing most people do to cut back won't make a difference on an individual level if this isn't dealt with. To deal with it, it has to be reined in at a national and international level. Or, at least, I know I don't have much power to change it (doesn't keep me from trying, I guess):
Here's the bit that shows how its only a handful of corporations that do most of the damage:
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
<edited to add>
I will say that one way that individuals contribute to emissions is buying into the consumerist meme that's pervaded society for the last few generations. We're misordered our priorities toward valuing people according to their wealth and/or what they own. I've bought into this a couple of times myself when I was younger. When I was able to buy my first vehicle all on my own, I thought I was hot shit tooling around in my little red pickup truck.
I think this seems a bit simplistic. It may be the oil companies that have extracted the oil but it's a much, much wider responsibility for actually using that oil in all manner of industrial processes.
Yes, it is simplistic, but I think the idea was to boil down the problem in a way that most people will understand. A lot of science reporting tends to dumb down the science so much that it ceases to mean what the original report meant. Overall, the Guardian has been ahead of most news sources on this topic.
So when it starts, who will be in charge of it, Donald Trump, Clinton? Because the rich will still have the power, and they will control what happens. Who gets to live where? Donald Trump for instance, is just embarrassing. Why? He doesn't come from the world of you and me. He doesn't care, and sees that as a virtue.
So, lets make it a crime. Large producer of Co2; fined, shut down. Why not? Your salary, shareholder dividends is of no concern. Get them. Shut the worst offenders down. Its not even radical, its desperate.
Tell me its too late because of the system. It isn't. Fuck you. Fuck your money and social status. What is an economy? A dozen corporations owning shit, surpassing people's interests? Ruining the world?
Its a clear case of left against right. Win or lose. They should be begging forgiveness. I KNOW people aren't stupid. Fuck off mega corporations and all their media and monetary corrupters.
The whole economy is a joke. Which, despite the evil scale of inequality would burble on if it wasn't for the fact that your kids are being robbed. Their kids too. Now I know it has been established that this is a systemic problem, but the answer is every one, take from your ancestor, give to your progeny.
IPCC say 12 years to limit climate change
It’s Already Here 11/10/18
The billionaires and lifeboatism.
Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand
I think they should move with the help of public transport
Yeah, that's why there needs to be a better public transport system.
That's one of the things that makes me tempted to spit on my hands, hoist the black flag, and so forth.
Yes, I've noticed things like that too. We have a lot of old missile silos around and about and they're popular for just that purpose.
Surviving doomsday: Underground condos bring wealthy to Kansas
Also, if you look closely, you'll find that they're working on monetizing water. As water becomes scarcer and scarcer, anyone who "owns" the right to water, will be making a killing. I keep seeing what they're doing and think that at some point all of the rest of us are going to stop being a profit center and start being a liability. I wonder what will happen then?
Nestlé makes billions bottling water it pays nearly nothing for
21 September 2017
Billionaires are the leading cause of climate change
"It's not a bug, it's a feature."
Would you eat slaughter-free meat?
It’s enough to make you start thinking about anarchism again. It’s been a long time. I’m supposed to be getting more right wing with age
I would. I’ve reduced the amount of meat I eat for purely ethical reasons but I like the taste of meat, which is why I haven’t gone totally veggie. If this becomes viable and doesn’t put more strain on the environment, that’s the only meat I would eat. There will be a lot of prejudice around “Frankenstein meat” like there is with any GMO but if you look into the science, genetically modified food isn’t harmful and has many benefits.
In the article people argue against it with emotive knee jerk reactions, like it’s traditional and meat should start out alive and with four legs. Animal welfare concerns are exactly the problem I have with meat, apart from the strain on the environment. I’d much rather my bacon comes from cell cultures than from a pig, shot up with antibiotics, who spends its short life in a cramped pen.
Separate names with a comma.