Climate Change Debate (Invitation Only)

[Kirran]

Probably an area which is rather more fertile for discussion is solutions.

We could talk about what kinds of thing it's good to do at the local and personal level to mitigate such things, and about what kind of solutions would help us deal with major catastrophes such as flooding of cities and coastal regions or the collapse of lowland agricultural industries.

 

[Laika]

Probably an area which is rather more fertile for discussion is solutions.

We could talk about what kinds of thing it's good to do at the local and personal level to mitigate such things, and about what kind of solutions would help us deal with major catastrophes such as flooding of cities and coastal regions or the collapse of lowland agricultural industries.

Yeah, much more positive.

Would you agree that falls into two categories: individual things we can do as consumers and collective things we could do politically?

 

[Kirran]

Yeah, much more positive.

Would you agree that falls into two categories: individual things we can do as consumers and collective things we could do politically?

I'd say it fits into two categories, but I'd put them more as: 1) what we can practically do, be it get involved in X movement or Y organisation or be it plant a tree and 2) what kind of solutions we predict for stuff like permafrost destabilisation, the flooding of Dhaka and the desertification of Central Africa. Which is speculative.

 

[Quintessence]

Sure, I'll poke my head in here. It's been quite some time since I've looked directly at any of the sciences going into researching this particular issue, but I'll work with what's in my head right now.

i) What do you consider the most serious implications of climate change?

I have difficulty thinking about climate change in isolation from other environmental issues. Climate change is symptomatic of humans over-engineering, as are the other issues I think about in conjunction with this one (e.g., habitat destruction, overpopulation). The serious implication of all of these is essentially two things: a sixth mass extinction event and manufactured garbage. They'll be perhaps the most dramatic extinction line in the history of this planet, coupled with a rock layer of this strange stuff called "plastic" and other assorted fabricated materials. And for what? What was all this for? I'll get to that in a bit, because I think it represents the root of the problem.

ii) how likely do you think it is in current climate science?

"It" as in various projections and scenarios? I haven't kept up on them. From back when I looked at these things, I remember that models were typically made under conservative assumptions. That said, a lot has changed in ten years, meaning I'd have to poke the literature again to have more salient comments.

iii) what do you think are the best solutions to respond to climate change?

First thing that needs to happen is anthropocentrism needs to go into the ground and become extinct. Humans are so myopically fixated on improving their own quality of life and their own survival they don't know when to say "I have enough" and think about someone else for once. In discussions about climate change, the conversations still revolve around humans this, humans that. No. That line of thinking is the root of the problem. Start thinking about other people for once. The people you humans generally don't even consider to be people.

I can't say I believe in something called a "best" solution. Best for whom? It hardly even crosses human minds that "best" doesn't mean "best for human persons." But humans are so selfish, they nearly always approach that "best" question as "best for human persons," and most typically, best for my culture's human persons" or "best for me, personally." Selfishness. We've got this geologic legacy of a sixth mass extinction and fabricated garbage because humans are impeccably selfish and arrogant. Before they started misusing their abilities as ecosystem engineers, this wasn't a problem because the scale of the impact was reasonable. But now? It's a serious problem.

Best for whom? If humans keep answering that question with "best for us human persons" then we will still have issues like climate change, overpopulation, habitat destruction, and mass extinction.

 

[Iti oj]

Some cultural impacts that could be interesting - a future society that's into its stride with dealing with climate change will have a much less consumerist ethic, there'll likely be big global diasporas of Bengalis, Indonesians and Arabians, Japan will be multicultural, many countries may see a reversal of urbanisation...

Urbanism could go either way. Imagine hydroponic vertical gardens in sky scrapper watered by rain water. This with roof top gardens could help rain water from over flowing sewage treatment plants and dumping raw sewage into the ocean and rivers.

Actually we will need more gray water infrastructure in general as well as moving away from water flushed toilets. long live humanure

 

[Kirran]

Urbanism could go either way. iamagen hydroponic vertical gardens in sky scrapper watered by rain water. This with roof top gardens could help rain water from over flowing sewage treatment plants and dumping raw sewage into the ocean and rivers.

Actually we will need more gray water infrastructure in general as well as moving away from water flushed toilets. long live humanure

Yeah sewage works are often overwhelmed in times of heavy rainpour and so forth so insufficiently cleaned liquid is released - there are many quite simple solutions to this.

I really like the idea of farmscrapers, have since I first found out about them. I don't know how feasible they are in terms of food production efficiency. We'd need very efficient electricity production for it to make sense.

Definitely though, I believe in a place for hydroponic and similar technologies in the future of food production.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not sure where to take this, but I'm going to try and find some information that may help keep the discussion moving. As most of RFs members are americans here's some projections that may prove useful.

Rising tempratures would threaten a return to "Dust Bowl" like conditions in the USA due to prolonged drought and unsustainable farming practices degrading the top soil.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/nasa-climate-change-dust-bowl-james-beard-conference-2015-10?r=US&IR=T

Prolonged droughts are already affecting California as water sources from meltwater in the rocky mountains dry up. Drought conditions threaten agriculture and are conducive to wild fires.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/california-drought-affect-on-food-supply-2014-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T

Over the course of the next two centuries, melting ice from the West Antartic Ice Sheet could raise sea levels by up to ten feet. The US would loose 28,800 square miles of land, currently home to 12.3 million people who would be displaced as environmental refugees and threatening major cities such as New York, Miami and New Orleans. The effect of rising sea levels will takes centuries and required sustained adaption along the coastline.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-17428

Heres a link to projections for New York:
http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#13/4...ions=0-RCP85-SLR&level=10&unit=feet&pois=show

As the seas warm, it could lead to intensifying hurricanes.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...rricanes-and-climate-change.html#.WDsES_TfWnM

I think thats as much as I can handle for now.

I can say, I'm glad I'll be dead before the worst starts to happen. If people think religion has started some bloody and violent wars, just wait until we are going to war for water.

 

[Laika]

I'd say it fits into two categories, but I'd put them more as: 1) what we can practically do, be it get involved in X movement or Y organisation or be it plant a tree and 2) what kind of solutions we predict for stuff like permafrost destabilisation, the flooding of Dhaka and the desertification of Central Africa. Which is speculative.

Is there such a hard distinction betweeb the speculative and practical solutions?

I mean perhaps our technology may be insufficient to respond to something the desertification of Central Africa but couldn't it slow it down and have practical use in that sense by giving us more time?

Sure, I'll poke my head in here. It's been quite some time since I've looked directly at any of the sciences going into researching this particular issue, but I'll work with what's in my head right now.

i) What do you consider the most serious implications of climate change?

I have difficulty thinking about climate change in isolation from other environmental issues. Climate change is symptomatic of humans over-engineering, as are the other issues I think about in conjunction with this one (e.g., habitat destruction, overpopulation). The serious implication of all of these is essentially two things: a sixth mass extinction event and manufactured garbage. They'll be perhaps the most dramatic extinction line in the history of this planet, coupled with a rock layer of this strange stuff called "plastic" and other assorted fabricated materials. And for what? What was all this for? I'll get to that in a bit, because I think it represents the root of the problem.

ii) how likely do you think it is in current climate science?

"It" as in various projections and scenarios? I haven't kept up on them. From back when I looked at these things, I remember that models were typically made under conservative assumptions. That said, a lot has changed in ten years, meaning I'd have to poke the literature again to have more salient comments.

iii) what do you think are the best solutions to respond to climate change?

First thing that needs to happen is anthropocentrism needs to go into the ground and become extinct. Humans are so myopically fixated on improving their own quality of life and their own survival they don't know when to say "I have enough" and think about someone else for once. In discussions about climate change, the conversations still revolve around humans this, humans that. No. That line of thinking is the root of the problem. Start thinking about other people for once. The people you humans generally don't even consider to be people.

I can't say I believe in something called a "best" solution. Best for whom? It hardly even crosses human minds that "best" doesn't mean "best for human persons." But humans are so selfish, they nearly always approach that "best" question as "best for human persons," and most typically, best for my culture's human persons" or "best for me, personally." Selfishness. We've got this geologic legacy of a sixth mass extinction and fabricated garbage because humans are impeccably selfish and arrogant. Before they started misusing their abilities as ecosystem engineers, this wasn't a problem because the scale of the impact was reasonable. But now? It's a serious problem.

Best for whom? If humans keep answering that question with "best for us human persons" then we will still have issues like climate change, overpopulation, habitat destruction, and mass extinction.

How far do you think changing our ideas, such as dropping anthropocentrism, can change our behaviour?

I'd argue (if you'll indulge the arrogance of it) that If we are already ecosystem engineers doesn't that make a case that we could become good at it by finding ways of working with ecosystems rather than against them?

E.g. Our selfishness could compell us to preserve fish stocks or prevent soil erosion so we don't run out of food.

The problem is how we have come to value a destructive instant gratification rather than a more sustainable practices to satisfy our interests. Thats not an innate failure of humans but a failure of our economic systems in which money is valued more than the resources and products we exchange it for as commodities. Hunter gatherer socities lived sustainably so its not necessarily a human problem. It could be "faulty" social organisation and belief systems which could evolve in response to the dangers.

 

[Kirran]

Is there such a hard distinction betweeb the speculative and practical solutions?

I mean perhaps our technology may be insufficient to respond to something the desertification of Central Africa but couldn't it slow it down and have practical use in that sense by giving us more time?

Ah, I've been unclear. I mean practical for Laika, Kirran, Quintessence and friends, not for governments and massive organisations with clout and resources.

I think definitely something like the desertification of Central Africa is something we can work to mitigate through climate engineering, a changed mindset from exploitation to co-operation with the land and, as far as human survival in the area goes, climate-proofing of settlements.

@Quintessence, I really like what you're saying. However, I think just as a result of the history of our thinking, where we are with these thoughts, I think that an easier "jump" to make for many will be towards a view of ourselves in connection with and reliant upon the rest of the biosphere. This will make ecosystem conservation a matter of self-interest, although with a better attitude about it. This is a reduction in anthropocentrism, but not an elimination. However, I think it'd move our attitudes in the right direction r.e. appreciating the equality of non-humans and help us to deal practically with the fallout from what we have done and are doing to the environment.

Dealing with climate change will of course require change in culture and value systems.

 

[Laika]

Ah, I've been unclear. I mean practical for Laika, Kirran, Quintessence and friends, not for governments and massive organisations with clout and resources.

I think definitely something like the desertification of Central Africa is something we can work to mitigate through climate engineering, a changed mindset from exploitation to co-operation with the land and, as far as human survival in the area goes, climate-proofing of settlements.

@Quintessence, I really like what you're saying. However, I think just as a result of the history of our thinking, where we are with these thoughts, I think that an easier "jump" to make for many will be towards a view of ourselves in connection with and reliant upon the rest of the biosphere. This will make ecosystem conservation a matter of self-interest, although with a better attitude about it. This is a reduction in anthropocentrism, but not an elimination. However, I think it'd move our attitudes in the right direction r.e. appreciating the equality of non-humans and help us to deal practically with the fallout from what we have done and are doing to the environment.

Dealing with climate change will of course require change in culture and value systems.

Lol. Ok.

Do you think we should get people to find out their carbon footprint, ways of lowering it and maybe find carbon off-setting schemes?

 

[Kirran]

Lol. Ok.

Do you think we should get people to find out their carbon footprint, ways of lowering it and maybe find carbon off-setting schemes?

Yes!

 

[YmirGF]

My "best guess" solution is a more targeted approach, one thing at a time. It's all very well to highlight so many areas that need change or modifications, but many areas, such as beef production, regardless how the vegans feel, is just not going to happen any time soon. Better to prioritize an approach and tackle one thing at a time. Real change, transformation, can only occur gradually unless some global dictatorship takes over. Given the current political polarization the likelihood of the global dictatorship is virtually nil without a massive loss of life which sort of defeats the purpose.

 

[YmirGF]

Lol. Ok.

Do you think we should get people to find out their carbon footprint, ways of lowering it and maybe find carbon off-setting schemes?

My lifetime carbon footprint barely registers on the scale. (I didn't drive for the first 55 years of my life, LOL.)

 

[Laika]

Yes!

My lifetime carbon footprint barely registers on the scale. (I didn't drive for the first 55 years of my life, LOL.)

Here's a Carbon Footprint thread if you to try it out.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/whats-your-carbon-footprint.192994/

Carbon off setting may be more work to research it a bit.

 

[Kirran]

I got 93% of the UN's 2020 target for people. About midway between the global average and the UK average. It seems to me that a good half of this, or more, is due to two plane journeys

 

[Iti oj]

We need to get people politically active in this topic. in America this means getting the 40 something percent to vote. people need to write the white house and there congressional representatives . also much can be done at the state level California is a good example of this.

 

[Kirran]

We need to get people politically active in this topic. in America this means getting the 40 something percent to vote. people need to write the white house and there congressional representatives . also much can be done at the state level California is a good example of this.

Can I write to the White House? I don't know they'll pay me much attention.

 

[Iti oj]

Can I write to the White House? I don't know they'll pay me much attention.

Yes I suppose so. how would one be politically active where you live though ?

 

[Kirran]

Yes I suppose so. how would one be politically active where you live though ?

Writing to MPs, getting involved in local government (I move around too much and my plans don't make it feasible), joining environmentalist organisations and lobby groups.

I am a card-carrying member of the Green Party, actually. I don't involve myself much in their activities of late.

 

[Iti oj]

My "best guess" solution is a more targeted approach, one thing at a time. It's all very well to highlight so many areas that need change or modifications, but many areas, such as beef production, regardless how the vegans feel, is just not going to happen any time soon. Better to prioritize an approach and tackle one thing at a time. Real change, transformation, can only occur gradually unless some global dictatorship takes over. Given the current political polarization the likelihood of the global dictatorship is virtually nil without a massive loss of life which sort of defeats the purpose.

You make a good point here . that being said there are things we can do to start that transition like removing subsidies on beef.