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

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

That is what you got out of my rant?  LMAO. 

 

No, what my comments claim is that the current corrupt government can and will not fix it. When the leader of the free world admits that there is 15% fraud in abuse in the largest social program they oversee, I think there is a problem. When laws are passed that benefit some at the expense of most there is a problem. When laws that others have to abide by, like insider trading or failure to pay taxes weaponized against some while those in power skate free, there is something wrong. When a 2 trillion dollar company can buy off a politician with just a couple of hundred grand worth of influence there is something wrong. 

 

Lastly, when, like in American, we have these appointed bodies failing to really be held accountable under the Delegation of Powers clause, it is literally a setup for fraud and abuse which has literally spiraled out of control with ZERO accountability except for some scam hearing for the clapping seals in front of the computers while nothing is ever done. 

 

Outdated or practically inexistent (in the case of the UK) constitutions might need a rethink. And they should strive for accountability.

[Priaptor]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Ok so we now have a couple of tools we can use:

 

- our vote

 

- our buying choices

 

Perhaps the answer is to stop buying from Apple. In fact the answer may have to come to reducing consumption and increasing corporate profit tax and hunt down tax evasion and shut down tax heavens to re-balance the scales.

US and European governments have been invading countries and toppling regimes for the good of their patrons, the big corporations. Perhaps, through the UN, they should instead be imposing sanctions on regimes/states that harbour money laundry and tax evasion.

Call me a cynic, but the UN, international courts, etc. may be more be more corrupt, duplicitous and economically as well as politically motivated as any local, state or federal government. Don't disagree with the premise just don't trust those you name. 

[semente]

2 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

Yeah, Iceland did do some good. Agree. America has become a joke politically as has most of the world. The internet has made people dumb not smarter. They have become the copy and paste fact checkers rather than doing some primary research into the aspects of what they claim to be experts in. 

 

One thing Iceland is NOW facing though, ironically, is the potential total instability of their infrastructure and environment as these trillion dollar corporations try to manipulate their government and people with the big $$ of large cloud warehouses that Iceland appears to be "perfect" for. 

 

It is a time when democratic governments should stick together and face the money. (but corruption...and nationalist populism)

[Priaptor]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Outdated or practically inexistent (in the case of the UK) constitutions might need a rethink. And they should strive for accountability.

Biggest problems with laws and the Constitution as I see it is the justification and rationalization by some to ignore them with ZERO accountability. The problem with replacing or amending a Constitution is what makes you think those who break the laws now will follow them in the future when no one is held accountable now? Or when a precedent is set that it is OK for some to ignore the laws why others with new laws won't justify the breaking of new laws or Constitutions. 

[Priaptor]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It is a time when democratic governments should stick together and face the money. (but corruption...and nationalist populism)

Well you can't just pigeon hole one POV regarding populism. I don't know, if I look at "nationalist populism" on face value, there is something to be said about the national populist (here in the US)  wanting to bring manufacturing to a cleaner manufacturer like the USA compared to China (and others). There may be no bigger "national populist" than China despite what the mainstream media would have you ignore.

 

The point being terms and tags are just that. We have manipulated the term to mean all bad when in fact, there may be "some" good. Of course, is not the first requirement of a Country's government to look out for the benefit of their citizens? We can tag that as some egregious "national populist" movement but there is room for looking out for the citizens of one's countries as well as to have a cogent, respectable and economically rational world stage approach without the pigeon holing. 

[semente]

39 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

Biggest problems with laws and the Constitution as I see it is the justification and rationalization by some to ignore them with ZERO accountability. The problem with replacing or amending a Constitution is what makes you think those who break the laws now will follow them in the future when no one is held accountable now? Or when a precedent is set that it is OK for some to ignore the laws why others with new laws won't justify the breaking of new laws or Constitutions. 

 

A Constitution, new or old, doesn't not warrant law abiding. But any constitution can be updated and improved to reflect the modern requirements and promote a more cohesive and just society.

[semente]

33 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

Well you can't just pigeon hole one POV regarding populism. I don't know, if I look at "nationalist populism" on face value, there is something to be said about the national populist (here in the US)  wanting to bring manufacturing to a cleaner manufacturer like the USA compared to China (and others). There may be no bigger "national populist" than China despite what the mainstream media would have you ignore.

 

The point being terms and tags are just that. We have manipulated the term to mean all bad when in fact, there may be "some" good. Of course, is not the first requirement of a Country's government to look out for the benefit of their citizens? We can tag that as some egregious "national populist" movement but there is room for looking out for the citizens of one's countries as well as to have a cogent, respectable and economically rational world stage approach without the pigeon holing. 

 

If we particularise then it becomes a thesis or treaty, not a forum chat over a cup of tea.

 

Nationalism and patriotism are not the same in my view. And even though the goal of a government is to zeal and provide for its citizens I find it morally debatable that such goals can be achieve at any cost (ecological or for example at the demise of citizens of another nation). The US is too powerful for the good of us Earth dwellers, particularly when a nationalist populism takes control of the helm.

[PYP]

I know it isn't baseball, but as per baseball:  

 

"The distribution of ... hits has changed over the decades, but one fact is absolutely clear: Most hits are singles. 

Games are won mostly by singles. 

Division titles are won mostly by singles. 

A World Series is won mostly by singles. 

Legacies are created mostly by singles."

 

Accordingly, individuals need to do their part, as do national governments, all governments, manufacturing of cement and steel (and other things) need to be less carbon intensive, the military has to reduce its carbon footprint, new jet fuel needs to be developed and implemented, polluting governments need to be held accountable, our young folks need to continue to push for change, voting needs to include all eligible people, etc.    

 

It seems to me that we cannot wait for a perfect all-in-one solution that is completely equitable in the short-term.  We need to move on all fronts simultaneously.  If you believe that some social scientist have it right when they characterize the workings of government as "muddling through," and you believe a systemic change, although needed, is nearly impossible, then an "all of the above" approach is needed now.  

[Priaptor]

28 minutes ago, PYP said:

I know it isn't baseball, but as per baseball:  

 

"The distribution of ... hits has changed over the decades, but one fact is absolutely clear: Most hits are singles. 

Games are won mostly by singles. 

Division titles are won mostly by singles. 

A World Series is won mostly by singles. 

Legacies are created mostly by singles."

 

Accordingly, individuals need to do their part, as do national governments, all governments, manufacturing of cement and steel (and other things) need to be less carbon intensive, the military has to reduce its carbon footprint, new jet fuel needs to be developed and implemented, polluting governments need to be held accountable, our young folks need to continue to push for change, voting needs to include all eligible people, etc.    

 

It seems to me that we cannot wait for a perfect all-in-one solution that is completely equitable in the short-term.  We need to move on all fronts simultaneously.  If you believe that some social scientist have it right when they characterize the workings of government as "muddling through," and you believe a systemic change, although needed, is nearly impossible, then an "all of the above" approach is needed now.  

Don’t disagree that the individual shouldn’t act appropriately. I live every day in a manner I wish all would live, whether it be environmentally cogent, charitable and law abiding. I have never said or implied that what the other guy does or what we should or shouldn’t be doing should impact what me, as an individual does

 

However, hiding reality from people or manipulating the facts or stats in order to propagandize while ignoring the elephant in the room not only ignores the biggest impediment to fixing things but to a certain extent will breed cynicism of some to say screw it and oppose things on an individual basis. To a certain extent we are currently witnessing this unfortunate paradigm regarding people making the wrong choice regarding COVID vaccines 

[Priaptor]

44 minutes ago, semente said:

 

If we particularise then it becomes a thesis or treaty, not a forum chat over a cup of tea.

 

Nationalism and patriotism are not the same in my view. And even though the goal of a government is to zeal and provide for its citizens I find it morally debatable that such goals can be achieve at any cost (ecological or for example at the demise of citizens of another nation). The US is too powerful for the good of us Earth dwellers, particularly when a nationalist populism takes control of the helm.

It’s not binary and the two are not mutually exclusive. While the mainstream media would love and does love to pose those against, for example, what is going on at the US southern border as nationalist right wing zealots the reality is quite different. It’s easy to frame this and other patriotic/nationalistic arguments in a propagandist way but as I said the reality is quite different. You can frame the description anyway you want with whatever terminology you want but the “globalist” may be more dangerous than the nationalist in absolute terms. 

[sphinxsix]

3 hours ago, Priaptor said:

That is what you got out of my rant?  LMAO. 

No, I just replied to all I had read, like I said I had to go.

I can't spend that much time at the computer nowadays but since the discussion here has become interesting I will try to join it every now and then.

 

[semente]

Interesting results.

The Greens, which were touted as the winners some 6 months ago, ended up third but got most votes in half of Berlin's constituencies, Frankfurt, Bonn, Stuttgard, Munich, Heidelberg... Apparently voting outside of the 2 main parties is still predominantly an urbanite thing (small Heidelberg is a university/research town so it was to be expected), except for east-southeast Germany which is predominantly far-right leaning, with a massive >30% of the votes around Dresden.

The good news is that looks as though the far-right is on the decline in the west and south (old FDR).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/26/german-election-results-exit-poll-and-possible-coalitions

 

[semente]

Want to save the Earth? Then don’t buy that shiny new iPhone

Apple has just unveiled the latest all-singing, all-dancing iteration of its handset, but perhaps you should resist the hype

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/18/want-to-save-the-earth-then-dont-buy-that-shiny-new-iphone

[DuckToller]

1 hour ago, semente said:

Interesting results.

The Greens, which were touted as the winners some 6 months ago, ended up third but got most votes in half of Berlin's constituencies, Frankfurt, Bonn, Stuttgard, Munich, Heidelberg... Apparently voting outside of the 2 main parties is still predominantly an urbanite thing (small Heidelberg is a university/research town so it was to be expected), except for east-southeast Germany which is predominantly far-right leaning, with a massive >30% of the votes around Dresden.

The good news is that looks as though the far-right is on the decline in the west and south (old FDR).

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/26/german-election-results-exit-poll-and-possible-coalitions

 

 

The interesting thing with that result remains that the parties which are Nr.3 & 4 by result, are prone to be decider for the new chancellor.

The losers (Conervatives, only 2nd) may still reign under that condition.
It might be worth to note, that the tendency to far right votes in the "new" regions (integrated/founded after 1989) are profundly rooted in the disappointment of the people in the old "democratic" parties, who are blamed for the misery in living conditions for many living in these regions. As a matter of fact, the majority of the former "East Germany" residents haven't (by far) profited alike from the German prosperity during the last 30 years as their Western brothers and sisters; or arriving for the West German companies that ramshackled the remains of industrial estates in the east.
I still think it's worth to be explained / indicated, but it is not (imho) a proper reasoning for their tendencies.

I got a call from my friend yesterday, who is Liberal party politics activist somwhere close to Frankfurt and succeeded with a 20% vote in a 15k village near Frankfurt (prosperity belt). She was actually in the Nord for holidays, close to Denmark, in a small village where the Liberals even have the mayor and a 34 % voting. Problems felt there are vastly different from East Germany or the big cities.
As a matter of fact, Germany's 2 big established parties (CDU/SPD) have had in 2002 about 77% of all votes, while in 2021 they dipped well below 50% of votes. This may be read as a strong vote against the long term great coalition Germany has had under Madame Merkel.
Anothe point to note is that established parties cannot any longer intergrated the bordeline democrats at the right and left wings of the rally. Nearly 25 % of voters dedicated their votes to parties outside the core of the established democratic system.
 

From the ecologist standpoint, strategic partnerships between Greens and Liberals are very bad news, in my pov.
It is more about importance and influence for the parties after years in opposition, rather than focussing on the important isuues that need to be addressed.
YMMV ..

[DuckToller]

Here is a disturbing quote from "The Spiegel" this morning:
 

"During Angela Merkel's 16 years as chancellor, the CDU/CSU had "taken a fatal left turn" and was now, for the first time in a long time, not the strongest party. "The Federal Executive Committee has supported this course and shares responsibility for the current election debacle," it said. If the CDU/CSU were to enter into coalition negotiations with other parties, the Values Union (Werteunion - ultra conservative part of CDU)  would demand the formation of a government without the participation of the Greens."

This is the logic of neanderthal conservatives if they lose to the right AND the left/moderate, because they have nothing more to offer...
 

 

[Priaptor]

China power crunch spreads, shutting factories and dimming growth outlook | Reuters

 

An interesting article, hardly from a "right" viewpoint of the absurd and ironic logic of the world, including "green companies" relying on coal utilizing countries for their manufacturing. 

 

And The Band Played On.

 

Nothing threatens our environment as well as global economies for that matter than what this article illustrates. 

[PYP]

2 hours ago, Priaptor said:

An interesting article, hardly from a "right" viewpoint of the absurd and ironic logic of the world, including "green companies" relying on coal utilizing countries for their manufacturing. 

Agree that such companies have outsourced their carbon footprint as a workaround.  Shame on them.  Of course, they have lots of company in doing so, unfortunately.

 

There were were two comments in the article that is somewhat optimistic given China's tendency to achieve the goals they set:

 

"China's focus on energy intensity and decarbonization is unlikely to abate, analysts said, ahead of COP26 climate talks - as the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference is known - which will be held in November in Glasgow and where world leaders will lay out their climate agendas.

 

China, the world's biggest energy consumer and source of climate-warming greenhouse gas, has said it aims to bring carbon emissions to a peak by 2030 and to net zero by 2060."

 

Is that achievable and is it fast enough to make a difference?

[Priaptor]

32 minutes ago, PYP said:

Agree that such companies have outsourced their carbon footprint as a workaround.  Shame on them.  Of course, they have lots of company in doing so, unfortunately.

 

There were were two comments in the article that is somewhat optimistic given China's tendency to achieve the goals they set:

 

"China's focus on energy intensity and decarbonization is unlikely to abate, analysts said, ahead of COP26 climate talks - as the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference is known - which will be held in November in Glasgow and where world leaders will lay out their climate agendas.

 

China, the world's biggest energy consumer and source of climate-warming greenhouse gas, has said it aims to bring carbon emissions to a peak by 2030 and to net zero by 2060."

 

Is that achievable and is it fast enough to make a difference?

I saw that and this has been China’s mantra for awhile BUT this is the same China who also claims to never have had more than 150 COVID cases per day, the same China who can’t be trusted in any policy claim whether it be Hong Kong, human rights violations or Taiwan and the list goes on and on. 

 

The fact that the second biggest economy gets a by from these Paris Accords tells us all we know

 

Personally I don’t trust them and the only way to get them to acquiesce to global demands is monetarily (of course will never happen with today’s governments) because their word means nothing. 
 

This incident is eye opening. Their answer let’s burn more coal.

[PYP]

Very sobering -- eliminating emissions is just the beginning (bolding added):  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-geoengineering.html

 

"Eliminating emissions by about 2050 is a difficult but achievable goal. Suppose it is met. Average temperatures will stop increasing when emissions stop, but cooling will take thousands of years as greenhouse gases slowly dissipate from the atmosphere. Because the world will be a lot hotter by the time emissions reach zero, heat waves and storms will be worse than they are today. And while the heat will stop getting worse, sea level will continue to rise for centuries as polar ice melts in a warmer world. This July was the hottest month ever recorded, but it is likely to be one of the coolest Julys for centuries after emissions reach zero.

 

Stopping emissions stops making the climate worse. But repairing the damage, insofar as repair is possible, will require more than emissions cuts.

 

To cool the planet in this century, humans must either remove carbon from the air or use solar geoengineering, a temporary measure that may reduce peak temperatures, extreme storms and other climatic changes. Humans might make the planet Earth more reflective by adding tiny sulfuric acid droplets to the stratosphere from aircraft, whitening low-level clouds over the ocean by spraying sea salt into the air or by other interventions."

[Priaptor]

37 minutes ago, PYP said:

Very sobering -- eliminating emissions is just the beginning (bolding added):  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/opinion/climate-change-geoengineering.html

 

"Eliminating emissions by about 2050 is a difficult but achievable goal. Suppose it is met. Average temperatures will stop increasing when emissions stop, but cooling will take thousands of years as greenhouse gases slowly dissipate from the atmosphere. Because the world will be a lot hotter by the time emissions reach zero, heat waves and storms will be worse than they are today. And while the heat will stop getting worse, sea level will continue to rise for centuries as polar ice melts in a warmer world. This July was the hottest month ever recorded, but it is likely to be one of the coolest Julys for centuries after emissions reach zero.

 

Stopping emissions stops making the climate worse. But repairing the damage, insofar as repair is possible, will require more than emissions cuts.

 

To cool the planet in this century, humans must either remove carbon from the air or use solar geoengineering, a temporary measure that may reduce peak temperatures, extreme storms and other climatic changes. Humans might make the planet Earth more reflective by adding tiny sulfuric acid droplets to the stratosphere from aircraft, whitening low-level clouds over the ocean by spraying sea salt into the air or by other interventions."

Thanks. 

 

That was actually a good article. Finally people are starting to understand that the approach MUST involved carbon removal. 

 

I have been following the company Carbon Engineering for awhile now and the technology has been rapidly moving forward. The author also poignantly says "The strongest opposition to geoengineering research stems from fear that the technology will be exploited by the powerful to maintain the status quo". That is EXACTLY what is happening now with our manufacturing with our biggest companies, on the one hand claiming to support the fight against global warming with participation locally while lobbying very successfully to maintain their status quo of manufacturing in the dirtiest countries in the world. 

 

I understand the author's points, don't disagree with most of what he says, however, just a bit of caution in using some examples to justify the claims of Armageddon.

 

1. Most our "more severe storms" really is how you measure them. There has been lots of controversy regarding this. Of course when measured from a "destructive" standpoint we are worse off because so many more people and so much more infrastructure now resides where these storms hit. Also, statistical modeling is very difficult regarding a planet that is billions of years old, when some of the more recent climate changes, have had such huge impacts on the time in which we actually have records; the mini-ice age is one such example.

2. Another example is the impact of glaciation which most people just don't understand and some that do manipulate the data to claim the end is near. In the US for example, the Wisconsin Glaciation, which started 100,000 years ago and is in its final stages of retraction has been so misunderstood and so manipulated by climate propagandists to be laughable. Of course our glaciers are retracting faster than anticipated BUT much (not all) is the miscalculation from years past of how glaciers actually retract.

3. Lastly, the flooding that is used to rationalize global climate change is also, often, not always a myth. Nothing illustrates this more than SE Florida. Everyone now acknowledges the horrendous flooding in parts of Miami and Ft. Lauderdale with just a little rain; as little as 1". Interesting that just a few miles north, no such flooding happens?  Once again, I think Mr. Keith, author of that article hits the nail on the head with his claim about "the powerful wanting to maintain status quo". The flooding problem is hardly the effect of climate change but everything to do with overbuilding, interfering drainage and the underlying water table so vital to the health of SE FL.  These irresponsible building patterns has literally put the Everglades at risk and is responsible for red tides along the west coast AND THE BAND PLAYED ON because the wealthy can sit there and blame climate change for their utterly irresponsible building activities. 

4. Sinking cities like Jakarta and Miami are used to illustrate climate change. Well, again, this is more to do with interfering with proper drainage into the necessary underlying water tables that allow both cities to exist. Putting pylons in may be a short term fix to some that want to build a 5 million dollar home on make believe land that the Corp Of Engineers constructed 100 years ago but mother nature doesn't like that especially when the supporting underlying water table is destroyed. 

 

The point of the above of course is not to mitigate the threat but to recognize that much of the claims out there are to, as the author claims, "to maintain the status quo" while irresponsible building wreaks havoc on our environment; whether that be huge high rise complexes with fragile underlying water tables, dams, etc. 

 

In any case, thanks good article. 

[Jud]

58 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

The flooding problem is hardly the effect of climate change but everything to do with overbuilding, interfering drainage and the underlying water table so vital to the health of SE FL.

 

There are now 30 days a year of fair weather flooding in Miami. There's never been any drainage, as the water table is a couple of feet below ground, so there's nowhere to drain to. (I used to experience this during storms when I lived there for several years.)

 

Within my lifetime (I'm in my mid-60s), the number of days per year of fair weather flooding in Miami is projected to reach 150.

[sphinxsix]

On 9/27/2021 at 11:16 AM, semente said:

Want to save the Earth? Then don’t buy that shiny new iPhone

Apple has just unveiled the latest all-singing, all-dancing iteration of its handset, but perhaps you should resist the hype

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/18/want-to-save-the-earth-then-dont-buy-that-shiny-new-iphone

 

Guardian: Some of America’s most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis.

 

No comment.

 

[PYP]

31 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Guardian: Some of America’s most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis.

Can someone explain how a billionaire is concerned about taxes?  Really.  Is there no limit to the pathological greed that leaves us without the ability to feed people and preserve the planet?    I guess some of these folks haven't flown far enough into space during their trips to get that experience of looking down at the planet and realizing "this is it, we don't have anything else."  

[Priaptor]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

There are now 30 days a year of fair weather flooding in Miami. There's never been any drainage, as the water table is a couple of feet below ground, so there's nowhere to drain to. (I used to experience this during storms when I lived there for several years.)

 

Within my lifetime (I'm in my mid-60s), the number of days per year of fair weather flooding in Miami is projected to reach 150.

Not sure what you are referring to.  
 

I have met with more engineers than I care to name and have met with and attended more hearings than I care to have attended and there is no doubt that the problem especially in Brickell is inadequate drainage starving the Everglades and leading to other ecological disasters in S FL.  The same catastrophic reason for flooding in the Ft Lauderdale area. The combination of inappropriate drainage, with king tides during a storm with overflow into the intracoastal has required changes in building codes. 
 

The relationship between flooding in areas of Dade and Broward is literally linear to the overbuilding. You think there had never been drainage in Miami?  I think you need to study the complex ecosystem of drainage in the area. There was always drainage and the interference with it has literally wreaked havoc. 
 

Between the overbuilding, stagnation of water and sugar industry getting a by the perfect storm has occurred in SE FL. 
 

Feel free to blame it on global warming if you like. By no means am I ignoring global warming but the current ecological catastrophe of SE FL is hardly that   
 

As I said: And The Band Played On. 

[Priaptor]

30 minutes ago, PYP said:

Can someone explain how a billionaire is concerned about taxes?  Really.  Is there no limit to the pathological greed that leaves us without the ability to feed people and preserve the planet?    I guess some of these folks haven't flown far enough into space during their trips to get that experience of looking down at the planet and realizing "this is it, we don't have anything else."  

PYP I think that illustrates my point in prior posts. Those who claim to be most concerned about the environment do the bait and switch. Apple will continue to use the dirtiest manufacturers to make their products as the author of the article you reference said the biggest enemy is status quo