The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, semente said:

This one is also worth watching:

 

 

This is excellent.  On the diapers especially.  It tells you the problems of disposable diapers.  OK.  It tells you how much water you'd use to wash reusable diapers.  OK. They neglected including the electricity and chemicals involved in that.  And then they just move on offering no solution or guide to which is better.  What do you want, everyone to just not diaper their kids?  

 

BTW, I hope you don't think I'm being informed about our ecological footprint.  Its huge.  Just offer some better alternatives if you don't like what we have now.  

[semente]

6 minutes ago, esldude said:

How do GMO's effect the ecosystem?  No I don't agree.  If you are raising natural corn or you are raising GMO corn, you aren't letting other plants there in either case. 

 

If a crop stops feeding a bug a bug starves. This affects the balance. Not to feed starved mouths but for profit. And there are hints at health risks. Which is why we have a very strict GMO policy in Europe. Which is why Trump wants to destroy the EU.

 

And now the topic has turned to politics and will soon be closed.

[Confused]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just for fun ... It could be against ethics, but what if you'd change the title of this thread ...

What if title change turns out to be far more dangerous than climate change?

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the greater the greenhouse effect. There is no doubt about that, none. Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at present rate it will cause severe negative effects on all from economy, ecosystems and biodiversity to human livelihood.

 

It’s true that a higher levels of CO2 can result in increased plant growth, but only up to a point after that there will be no positive effects. The main problem for plants is not the level of CO2 its water and climate.

 

Um, do you know what the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is? Hint - it ain’t CO2. 

 

So, while I am not saying you are wrong, the planet has been significantly warmer in the past, all without human help. Most of the (admittedly layman friendly) analysis of that I have read did not show any “negative” effects of humans. Perhaps because there were not many humans around. So other than supposition and fear mongering, what exactly are these horrific effects and exactly does restraint in the first world moderate them? I am not sure anyone can say, not without a lot more study and research. 

 

That bothers me far more than anything else. How is that any different than what the person in the White House is doing? 

 

All I am saying is it may feel great to go out there and cheerlead to save the planet. But first off, the planet does not need saving, people do. And secondly, we do not know enough to know what to do to save ourselves. And do not seem inclined to learn, just blame other people for the mess. 

[semente]

13 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Well that again is the point. Nobody *knows* - why are you blind to that my friend?

 

As for the other load of guilt you are trying to assign - purest poppycock! 

 

You should be able to answer that for yourself. Blaming the very bad acts of a group of evil people on anyone but themselves is simply blind foolishness. Who paid, in treasure and blood to stop the Taliban? Who do you think is trying to feed the people over there being used like puppets? Who puts women and children in buildings to protect the political leaders? 

 

You are looking to assign blame on people with no guilt. And looking for simple answers to very complex questions. Questions that do not have simple answers. 

 

No guilt you say. I guess I'm not alone in my blindness...

 

But I agree that these are very complex questions. Questions that do not have simple answers.

Which is why we as a society must engage in discussing the subject and coming up with answers. Fast.

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the greater the greenhouse effect. There is no doubt about that, none. Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at present rate it will cause severe negative effects on all from economy, ecosystems and biodiversity to human livelihood.

 

It’s true that a higher levels of CO2 can result in increased plant growth, but only up to a point after that there will be no positive effects. The main problem for plants is not the level of CO2 its water and climate.

Don't disagree at all.  What can be done about it that really works or is workable? 

Suppose everyone agrees starting next month, to stop activities to the point C02 emissions drop to 10% the current level?  You do realize there are lots of bad effects to doing something like that.  So how to you get there without causing lots of bad problems elsewhere in the process?  I'm all for it.  I just don't see how that works right now.  Not because I don't think there is a way, or that it is impossible, but this is a big complex global problem and touching the tar baby doesn't even get you close the stickiness of this problem.  Most of the offered oversimplified solutions have ill effects themselves, and aren't enough.  

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

the planet does not need saving, people do

 

It is not the planet that needs saving but the ecosystem which sustains human life (and that of another 10 million species)...

Is there life on the Moon?

[Paul R]

Just now, semente said:

 

No guilt you say. I guess I'm not alone in my blindness...

 

No guilt, exactly. For one, people can’t be held individual guilty of what a society does. You feel guilty for what that dictator of yours did? If you do, you should not.

 

Just now, semente said:

 

But I agree that these are very complex questions. Questions that do not have simple answers.

Which is why we as a society must engage in discussing the subject and coming up with answers. Fast.

 

That is the whole point, and the only rationale course of action. As long as that discussion is about real research, and not just attempts to shout down people you don’t agree with, or force a course of action where the consequences are not known. 

[PeterSt]

So, you guys seem to eat 5442 hot dogs in your life time. I maybe 2 or 3 a year. I plan to reach 100 so that is ~250 hot dogs in my life time.

Btw, I suppose that one of them was thrown at me at independence day because I happened to pass by.

 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

If a crop stops feeding a bug a bug starves. This affects the balance. Not to feed starved mouths but for profit. And there are hints at health risks. Which is why we have a very strict GMO policy in Europe. Which is why Trump wants to destroy the EU.

 

And now the topic has turned to politics and will soon be closed.

Trump derangement syndrome.  Trump has plenty of bad qualities for real.  But because Europe has a strict GMO policy he wants to destroy the EU? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Given the results of the recent EU elections I guess Trump has evilly influenced them somehow.  Or was it Putin and Russia who are responsible in a shadow operation once again?  Man all this evil is gonna kill us all.  You should feel better.  We don't have to worry about global warming with these folks around. 

[Paul R]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It is not the planet that needs saving but the ecosystem which sustains human life (and that of another 10 million species)...

Is there life on the Moon?

 

You want to preserve the ecosystem, but that ecosystem has been in constant flux for millions of years. It isn’t even the same today as it was 10 years ago. Can you explain, in detail, what exact changes to make, what the effects will be, and how to deal with any unintended consequences? Can you model it? 

 

For example, what species are okay to make extinct in your changes? Some will go extinct, that much is certain. What habitat will you make uninhabitable? Not to mentions who pays for it? 

 

Do you really want to advocate making irreversible changes blindly? 

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

So, you guys seem to eat 5442 hot dogs in your life time. I maybe 2 or 3 a year. I plan to reach 100 so that is ~250 hot dogs in my life time.

Btw, I suppose that one of them was thrown at me at independence day because I happened to pass by.

 

It is all those Hot Dog eating contests on the 4th of July.  They throw the average off by a lot.

[semente]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Don't disagree at all.  What can be done about it that really works or is workable? 

Suppose everyone agrees starting next month, to stop activities to the point C02 emissions drop to 10% the current level?  You do realize there are lots of bad effects to doing something like that.  So how to you get there without causing lots of bad problems elsewhere in the process?  I'm all for it.  I just don't see how that works right now.  Not because I don't think there is a way, or that it is impossible, but this is a big complex global problem and touching the tar baby doesn't even get you close the stickiness of this problem.  Most of the offered oversimplified solutions have ill effects themselves, and aren't enough.  

 

No one doubts that there will be economical effects and that you can't just stop without changing the paradigm.

 

But if we all contribute with a tiny effort the result will have a significant impact. I gave a dozen of examples of things we can do that will have a tiny impact when isolated but which when multiplied by millions...

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

So, you guys seem to eat 5442 hot dogs in your life time. I maybe 2 or 3 a year. I plan to reach 100 so that is ~250 hot dogs in my life time.

Btw, I suppose that one of them was thrown at me at independence day because I happened to pass by.

 

 

So? How many sausages do you eat? 🤪

 

[semente]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Trump derangement syndrome.  Trump has plenty of bad qualities for real.  But because Europe has a strict GMO policy he wants to destroy the EU? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

Given the results of the recent EU elections I guess Trump has evilly influenced them somehow.  Or was it Putin and Russia who are responsible in a shadow operation once again?  Man all this evil is gonna kill us all.  You should feel better.  We don't have to worry about global warming with these folks around. 

 

Trump wants both free trade and protectionism. Do as I say, not as I do. Making america great Again.

[esldude]

Just now, semente said:

 

No one doubts that there will be economical effects and that you can't just stop without changing the paradigm.

 

But if we all contribute with a tiny effort the result will have a significant impact. I gave a dozen of examples of things we can do that will have a tiny impact when isolated but which when multiplied by millions...

I forget the name of the logical fallacy this is.  But if millions make a 1% change it is still a 1% change.  Unless everyone makes the change it isn't even 1% of the global total.  I'm not saying it isn't a step in the right direction to get whatever you can.  But it isn't a solution to this problem. 

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

No one doubts that there will be economical effects and that you can't just stop without changing the paradigm.

 

But if we all contribute with a tiny effort the result will have a significant impact. I gave a dozen of examples of things we can do that will have a tiny impact when isolated but which when multiplied by millions...

 

That is a bit of a fallacy - tiny impacts get lost in the noise, unless global and coordinated. That is the real problem. How do you get people everywhere to cooperate? Guilt tripping first world countries only goes so far. And can backfire, making first world people just look stupid in other eyes. 

 

[esldude]

Just now, semente said:

 

Trump wants both free trade and protectionism. Do as I say, not as I do. Making america great Again.

He proclaims he wants fair trade.  Without fair trade he thinks protectionism is protecting something important. Protectionism from history usually looks like a bad idea except for limited time frames.  So I don't think I agree with him.  But you seem intent on broadcasting the effects of TDS.  So you probably won't really listen to this. 

[semente]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I forget the name of the logical fallacy this is.  But if millions make a 1% change it is still a 1% change.  Unless everyone makes the change it isn't even 1% of the global total.  I'm not saying it isn't a step in the right direction to get whatever you can.  But it isn't a solution to this problem. 

 

Your actions can affect business and business will have to change.

Your vote can affect politics and politics will affect business and business will have to change.

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Trump wants both free trade and protectionism. Do as I say, not as I do. Making america great Again.

Yes, but a temporary aberration only. It would be stupid to abrogate the rule of law for a problem that can be corrected in just a few years. Four or Eight at the worst. About 18 months now.

[Summit]

The economic costs of climate change is massive. Already in sir Nicholas Stern’s report from 2006 the report states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The cost of not doing nothing (or enough) is much greater than the cost of taking actions and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.

 

“Sir Nicholas Stern, former Chief economist of the World Bank, was asked by the British government to lead a review on the economics of global climate change. The Stern Review was published in October 2006 and attracted a great deal of attention from various circles, from academic to NGOs and the media in Europe, but also worldwide. This article aims first to highlight the Review’s main points and to single out a selection of the most significant factual data and quantitative evaluations that make up the Review’s rich contribution to the subject, going beyond the well-publicised striking results in which the possible damages of climate change are compared to the impact of the two world wars of the 20th century, but lasting forever. The survey concludes with reflections on criticism of the Stern Review made by several economists, mostly in the US, regarding the integrated assessment modelling exercise included in the Review. The most consequential criticisms are related to the low discount rate used to tackle this very long-term issue and the treatment of adaptation of future generations to a new global climate. Paradoxically, the much-attacked choice of a low discount rate chosen to ensure an equal treatment of the utility of all generations is the best-grounded in the utilitarian philosophy that underpins the type of economics that both the Stern Review and most of its critics share.”

 

https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/240

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/?redirect=1

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Your actions can affect business and business will have to change.

Your vote can affect politics and politics will affect business and business will have to change.

 

This is true, but only over time. Other factors come into play that prevent or moderate rapid change. By over time, I mean decades or even lifetimes. 

 

[PeterSt]

I have now seen 30 minutes of milk, beef, chicken, hamburgers, potatoes, bottles, aluminum. plastic and a million candy bars of which latter I consume nothing. Than I saw the 3/10 in the top left corner and found myself demotivated.

 

Yesterday we could finally have the first BBQ of 2019 because of sheer cold weather so far. No global warming in sight right now. Last year it was 7 weeks in a row of sun with IIRC only 1.3mm of rain and 3 or 4 days with a few clouds. Better than Florida. That surely never happened (for a country where 3 days of sun in a row urges for a Thunderstorm).

 

But it is true. I am not going to change anything about that.

 

 

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

So? How many sausages do you eat? 🤪

 

With say 20 BBQ occasions a year ? ... 20 or less.

[Paul R]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

With say 20 BBQ occasions a year ? ... 20 or less.

Oh my - speechless. I can send you a frying pan... 😁