State of the Planet

Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by Reiver, 1 Jan 2019.

  1. Adam4868

    Adam4868 Veteran

    Where was you responding to me ? Im sorry if i missed that.Ethical companys theres quite a few trying to do there bit and give something back.Although i agree theres a hell of a lot more taking whatever they can and not giving a feck !
    As for a alternative...mmm how about a bit of socialism ? WTF has the mass murder of babies got to do with this ?
    burntoutbanger likes this.
  2. Flying_Monkey

    Flying_Monkey Toll Collector on the Road to Nowhere

    I think once we're moving into the terrain of cooperatives combines with trans-national action, and away from shareholder value, we've already moved a long way from the current model of capitalism. How far things might go from there is anyone's guess. I'm not arguing that addressing the climate problem will produce communism, rather that addressing the climate problem (and other pressing environmental issues, let's not forget) will both require and lead to, the rediscovering of more collective values and forms of organisation that are significantly less capitalist. Which is kind of what you're saying too, we just have different ideas of where we'd want to it to go from there. I'm not so bothered about what we call the system that emerges from this, only that it doesn't exploit people and planet...
    mudsticks likes this.
  3. mudsticks

    mudsticks Über Member

    I don't understand why people think that being more cooperative, collaborative, and generally ethical rather than monstrously extractive and exploititve is so hard to achieve.

    I mean we do it in our families, communities special interest groups etc etc, it's kind of how we prefer being in a way... We feel less stressed, more supported, are very willing to share, have a nice time together even.

    It's more like the abstract monetary profit, and greed beyond all else of uber capitalism that is the artificial way of being.

    Pursuit of wealth beyond our needs has been imposed on us as a thing to aspire to, or admire.
    Whereas its just plain greed.

    Yes if course we still need to make and do things to meet our needs, provide services for society, and all that.

    But that doesn't really seem to be the aim of our current project.

    The system needs to change, and we need to get in with finding ways to do that in ways that are acceptable to the majority, whilst not fecking over the planet.

    Decarbonisiting, and regeneration could provide lots of benign and creative opportunities if we tackle it in the right mindset.

    It's creating that more just, equitable, and caring mindset, when considering all this that's maybe the greatest problem.

    That's going to require some better leaders than the current crop. .
    FishFright and Flying_Monkey like this.
  4. Adam4868

    Adam4868 Veteran

  5. Rusty Nails

    Rusty Nails We remember

    Here and there
    Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    You say the system has to change and I agree with that in principle, but how, when it is people that make the system?

    There is no way of changing the system unless people change first.

    There is little point in blaming something abstract like "the system".
  6. mudsticks

    mudsticks Über Member

    OK then 'redesign' the system.
    It (un trammelled capitalism) is predicated on everyone supposedly trying to scramble to the top of the heap.
    That everyone, or every country, is or should be trying to outdo each other.
    Materially, status wise, gdp and all that.

    That competition, and getting and spending more is always better. It's clearly impossible, not to mention wholly undesirable to always be 'going for growth'

    Instead of 'going for enough' and 'going for equity' and preserving the finite resources, and ecosystems upon which we depend.

    It's just good housekeeping really.
    A bit more humility and acknowledging our interdendence on each other.

    And totally our dependence on the natural world and its resources.

    We 'party on' . Like there's no tomorrow, using up and polluting everything.

    At this rate there will be no tomorrow.

    But no one - or no one ego driven enough to hold power, as it is currently arranged, really cares, or is paying any attention. Its all short termism

    So I guess we need something like government by more holocratic means.

    Set out the parameters for what a more socially just, and ecologically regenerative culture looks like.

    There's pockets of such self sustaining systems, all over the world, and they flourish if encouraged.

    Trouble is they're a bit anti capitist in many ways, so not very attractive to business as usual, definitive, left or right politicians.
    So they don't attract mainstream funding, or investment, or interest.

    The current models clearly don't work now, and are causing tremendous harm.
    So we must act differently, and pretty quickly too.
    FishFright likes this.
  7. Rusty Nails

    Rusty Nails We remember

    Here and there
    You have said nothing I disagree with.

    But how, in practical terms,do we get from where the world is to where it should be given that the people in control set up and benefit from those systems/models?

    I am pessimistic of real change until it is too late.
  8. McWobble

    McWobble Euthermic

    Minkowski Space
    Hmmm. A projected saving of over 1034 gigatonnes (Gt) of atmospheric CO2. That seems rather unfeasible to me: the atmosphere holds a total mass of 3000 Gt of CO2, so such a reduction would reduce CO2 to below pre-Industrial concentrations. I think we need more information on from what the baseline of this reduction is. It's not clear, but it appears that growth to 2050 is assumed to be similar to today. In other words, this is a typical growth scenario. It specially excludes solutions that require reduction in consumption. Which is why, for instance, that airplanes appear so far down the list. Growth in air use is assumed: the reductions are all from use of more fuel efficient aircraft. Potential gains from less use of air transport are not addressed. I don't think it proves your point at all. That 1034 Gt CO2 reduction is likely referenced to a level far beyond what is in the atmosphere right now. Even if all the measures are taken, there will still be a higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 than present.

    Not addressing demand reduction is a critical failing. That is where the biggest savings are to be made. Given that about 25% of all energy use is road transport, it is abundantly clear that biggest gains will be seen in reducing this. More efficient engines are marginal at best, especially given that future gains are likely to be marginal.The same applies to air transport.

    Fiddling around with such reduced CO2 strategies seems to me to be just fiddling around at the edges while Rome burns. We need to be reducing demand. Ultimately, that means abandoning this infinite growth model our economic system is based on. Infinite growth in an finite world is untenable in the long term - or, as is becoming increasingly clearer, the medium term.
    mudsticks and theclaud like this.
  9. Smokin Joe

    Smokin Joe Legendary Member

    One of the things those countries who are attempting to cut their carbon footprint need to do is to either stop trading with those who are not or to impose punitive tariffs on goods imported from them. Not being able to buy cheap goods from countries like China would be a small price to pay in the short to medium term, because with their economies under severe threat they would be forced to take the problem seriously, and that includes the USA.
  10. Flying_Monkey

    Flying_Monkey Toll Collector on the Road to Nowhere

    I agree.
    mudsticks likes this.
  11. SpokeyDokey

    SpokeyDokey Nearly 63 - oh dear! Moderator

  12. mudsticks

    mudsticks Über Member

    Continuous plant cover, and good soil management, can definitely help with that.

    That's using the 'ingenuity' of natural processes.

    But it needs to be combined with a massive reduction of fossil fuel usage, and proper investment in alternative technologies.
    Last edited: 26 Apr 2019
  13. SpokeyDokey

    SpokeyDokey Nearly 63 - oh dear! Moderator

    The more angles covered the better I think we would agree.

    The technology does sound interesting though and may help to reverse some of our over-abundant CO2 production.
    mudsticks likes this.
  14. mudsticks

    mudsticks Über Member

    I agree up to a point..

    My issue with these mega-machines that will allegedly save us from ourselves, is that they may make people believe we that don't need to make any efforts to effect change in ourselves.
  15. Rusty Nails

    Rusty Nails We remember

    Here and there
    Including those people who use air transport a lot and then say there is no choice. Emma Thompson, who I think is generally doing a good job on publicising environmental issues, tried to defend her flight from LA to the London protests last week saying she "had" to go to LA for her work, and anyway she uses wooden cutlery and plants trees to offset her carbon footprint. No she didn't have to. For money and fame she chooses to work in an industry that flies people all over the world on assignments, when she could still be wealthy and choose to work solely in Europe and travel by train like Greta Thunberg. We all have a choice.
    SpokeyDokey, Smokin Joe and mudsticks like this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice