-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Climate Change: Ask Me Anything
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
I'd love to say "Shrink" but given its driven at least by a supply of mis-information from the oil lobby and the media confusing it by trying to present it in a "balanced" way when there isn't even a debate among scientists, it looks likely to continue to be a problem. Add to this a Trump Presidency and its unlikely to dissapear within the next five to ten years.
May be of interest for possible further information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
The real issue is the "demand" for denial of climate change though. I don't think I'm being unfair in saying that many climate change deniers deny it because they believe action on it will be a serious threat to economic and political liberty. Even if they stopped denying tommorrow, those issues and the interests behind them won't. That could create a sort of resistence to action and I don't like how that could end. But that much is speculative.
Sometimes I think the whole global warming thing is blown out of proportion, but I also believe we should err on the side of caution. Many cities are really polluted and sometimes I wonder if I've ever breathed pure air in my 40+ years.
My questions would be:
-How can we more aggressively attack the problem without negatively impacting the lives we are used to living?
-Should we import from countries that have lame environmental standards?
My questions would be:
-How can we more aggressively attack the problem without negatively impacting the lives we are used to living?
-Should we import from countries that have lame environmental standards?
@Onyx
-How can we more aggressively attack the problem without negatively impacting the lives we are used to living?
Extremely aggressive technological solutions that enable use to maintain the same standard of living. This is on the more optimistic and utopian end of the spectrum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technogaianism
But its unlikely that this will leave our society unchanged. Even without climate change impacts, Technologies create new possibilities and dangers so our socities will evolve in response to that. So it is reasonable to expect some changes and compromises on our way of life to adapt to the effects of these technologies as well as climate change itself.
-Should we import from countries that have lame environmental standards?
I don't know, but at a guess its not that simple as environmental problems do not come from just the production of goods, but also their distrubition. Globalisation means that products can be designed in one country, components made in another country are exported to another inorder to be assembled and then sold around the world. Thats alot of moving stuff around.
If you can buy fruit and vegtables locally its worth doing to reduce your carbon footprint. Supermarkets are part of much larger supplies chains. So for example, I live in an area which farms alot of Brussel sprouts in the UK. I could buy them through a local store where its straight from the farm to the store, but the supermarket adds miles onto it as those Sprouts get shipped up and down the country to large centralised distribution networks. I imagine that same issues are at work with exports.
On the plus side, this can be fixed by a global shift away from oil based fuels for transportation. There are even development on solar powered aircraft (the clip shows an attempt to fly around the world only on solar power). Thats definetely more encouraging. It is possible that could be scaled up in the future but I think its still cutting edge technology for now.
-How can we more aggressively attack the problem without negatively impacting the lives we are used to living?
Extremely aggressive technological solutions that enable use to maintain the same standard of living. This is on the more optimistic and utopian end of the spectrum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technogaianism
But its unlikely that this will leave our society unchanged. Even without climate change impacts, Technologies create new possibilities and dangers so our socities will evolve in response to that. So it is reasonable to expect some changes and compromises on our way of life to adapt to the effects of these technologies as well as climate change itself.
-Should we import from countries that have lame environmental standards?
I don't know, but at a guess its not that simple as environmental problems do not come from just the production of goods, but also their distrubition. Globalisation means that products can be designed in one country, components made in another country are exported to another inorder to be assembled and then sold around the world. Thats alot of moving stuff around.
If you can buy fruit and vegtables locally its worth doing to reduce your carbon footprint. Supermarkets are part of much larger supplies chains. So for example, I live in an area which farms alot of Brussel sprouts in the UK. I could buy them through a local store where its straight from the farm to the store, but the supermarket adds miles onto it as those Sprouts get shipped up and down the country to large centralised distribution networks. I imagine that same issues are at work with exports.
On the plus side, this can be fixed by a global shift away from oil based fuels for transportation. There are even development on solar powered aircraft (the clip shows an attempt to fly around the world only on solar power). Thats definetely more encouraging. It is possible that could be scaled up in the future but I think its still cutting edge technology for now.
Have I stockpiled enuf firewood for the coming winter?I'm not a scientist but if you have a question, I'm willing to look into it and find out the answer for you. I want to know more, so why not help others whilst I am at it?
Feel free to ask anything. Big or Small.
Colder temperatures cause shrinkage.
So warmer temps will make them grow.
I favor free market solutions.....
- Remove tax disincentives to making energy conservation investments.
- Stop subsidizing high fashion low yield enterprises like Tesla, Solyndra, etc.
- Higher taxes on energy will drive both conservation & technological innovation.
The revenue therefrom would allow offsetting tax reductions in income taxes, thereby offering revenue neutrality.
- Remove density restrictions in cities, which will make mass transit more cost effective.
Can you expand a bit here?
This.
I'm not a scientist but if you have a question, I'm willing to look into it and find out the answer for you. I want to know more, so why not help others whilst I am at it?
Feel free to ask anything. Big or Small.
Have you been watching "Years of living dangerously"? Brings out into the open the magnitude of our effect on the world as a whole. IMO, nothing will change until we get overpopulation under control.
I would support free market solutions as a less disruptive transition within current institutions. But the big companies have a vested interest in avoiding expensive investment to keep up their profits, so it's down to new emerging companies to innovate and to force others to. Given the money, influence and power of the fossil fuel industry that could slow it down quite a bit and make more "socialist" policies more likely in response to perceived market failure as the changes required become more urgent.
Big companies will invest in anything which will boost profits.
It's why car companies have improved engine efficiency so much.
A few things they've worked on (some of which are already on the market)....
- Modified Atkinson cycle engines
- Camless valve actuation
- Adiabatic engines
- Electronic controls
- Direct injection gasoline engines
- Turbocharging
- Hybrid electrics
- Stirling cycle engines
- Lighter materials, eg, HSLA steel, aluminum, carbon fiber
Whilst there are many areas of uncertianity in the science of climate change, particuarly in projection its effects dependent on human decisions on energy use and the sensitivity of the climates global tempratures to release of greenhouse gasss, the fact such uncertianty exists does not falsify the existing evidence which shows the causation between burning fossil fuels, releasing greenhouse gas emissions and warming up the planet. Rather it demands action based on what we know now and further research to understand the science in greater deatil.
Plus you can't argue with people in bow ties because bow ties are so cool they make them immune to criticism.
Nothing I say is true.*nodds politely in agreement but has no idea what your saying or if its true*
More solar.
ScottySatan
Well-Known Member
Assuming you don't believe that climate change is caused by humans, why do people use that as an excuse to not try to do anything about it? Do we not still struggle when there's no hope that it'll save us from drowning or falling to our deaths? Or do these people deep down still not believe in warming at all? Or (sinister, my favorite) do they not care?