|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 25, 2019 21:57:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 26, 2019 8:54:17 GMT -5
"In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled."
All because if fossil fuel based industrial development.
Shellenberger has long been a voice of cool rationality. He started out as a typical "wind and solar" alternative energy advocate, but then he saw, through math and experience, how that was a technological dead end.
He eventually came to the realization that the only thing that matters is energy density, and that the most energy dense technology we have is nuclear fission. That density makes it far and away the cleanest and safest power generation system available.
The real rift we're experiencing...the one that largely goes unmentioned...is between two branches of environmentalism. On one side are the neo-Malthusians who fundamentally see the world as a collection of finite resources and therefore see population as the root cause of all environmental problems.
On the other side are the Ecomodernists, who see humanity's limitless ingenuity and tool making skills, and recognize our capacity for adapting the natural environment to our needs.
By every measure, the Ecomodernists have already won. The developed world today, by every measure you can think of, already reflects the glories of our ingenuity. That we have to look 100 years into the future to find something to worry about proves the point.
And the real irony is that if it's reduced population growth that you want, we've learned that industrial wealth and comfort is the way to get there.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 9:06:27 GMT -5
(just making fun. I'll read the article later and offer some BRILLIANT response)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 26, 2019 9:42:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 26, 2019 10:19:49 GMT -5
How cute. The author is an amateur astronomer. Science, it's what's for breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 26, 2019 10:26:27 GMT -5
but you maybe didn't see the photo of the fire?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 26, 2019 10:35:56 GMT -5
but you maybe didn't see the photo of the fire? I thought it was all-you-can-eat night at Taco Bell.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 16:26:20 GMT -5
Yeah. It's a good article. The guy is not denying climate change. He's saying it's not so totally responsible for the disasters that are reported. In fact it's only a minor contributor to most weather related phenom we see reported. Human encroachment into risky areas is going to create the potential of more disaster. Plus human activity such as not replacing bad power lines in California will create more fires in historically fire-prone parched areas.
Send this article to AOC.
But he doesn't support Climate Deniers. He's just saying be more realistic about this. Yes, there are things we should do to make the world a better place for our future and the future of other living species. But predicting Apocalypse from Climate Change is missing the point and diverting attention from the many other things we should be concerned with to be good stewards of nature and the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 16:30:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 26, 2019 16:37:04 GMT -5
Which is exactly the kind of bullshit, name calling, and profound laziness that the first article lamented. To this I have my standard response, wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first. So Marshall, what are you actually going to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 26, 2019 16:54:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 17:43:56 GMT -5
So Marshall, what are you actually going to do about it? Well, I'm not moving to the California foothills. Or Florida, or Venice Italy. Or the Arizona dessert. 20% of the planet's fresh water on the other end of my plumbing pipe. That being said, I don't water the grass when it gets hot and dry in the summer. Green lawn be damned. Grass can survive a drought. But yes, I do recycle everything I can. I don't buy stinkin' water in plastic bottles. I drive a Honda Civic that gets 32 mpg around town. (almost bought Prius when they first came out. But opted for a Corolla instead because the Prius was new technology). Oh and a few other things. ComEd says our energy usage (house electric) is under that of my neighbors. I have an electric snow blower. Don't even fire it up unless there's something significant to push around. I reuse a couple of year-old Gatorade plastic bottles for water when I play pickleball. Took them to Portugal and back for my hiking water bottles on that trip. And I know these are small potato things. I'm not good at using public transportation when I can save half hour or more in time by driving my personal vehicle. And I flew on a big belching jet to Portugal, instead of taking a sailboat over. One night, after a long hiking day, I sat on the hotel patio sipping a nice whisky and watched a plane up @ 30,000 ft draw a contrail in the sky. By the compass, it was probably heading to South America. Maybe from France or England. And the sky was scarred with older similar contrails and I thought, "What a big affect we have on the planet." I'm more concerned about what mankind is doing to the oceans by over fishing than I do about C02.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 26, 2019 17:56:20 GMT -5
Well, for those of you who care about the future of life on this planet, as I do, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, unlike guitars, trombones are 100% carbon free!
Make the switch for a healthier planet.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 17:58:02 GMT -5
Your linked article admits that human activity is causing the extinction of many species. And we should be concerned and vigilant about this and our overall effect on the Climate. It's saying it's not a apocalypse like the NY Times article is intimidating, though.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 26, 2019 17:58:04 GMT -5
I'm more concerned about what mankind is doing to the oceans by overfishing than I am about C02. That is why I am eating less seafood these days. I'm eating a lot more beef, instead.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 18:04:20 GMT -5
I'm eating more peanut butter.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Nov 26, 2019 19:40:57 GMT -5
I very much liked the tone the article took. Because what we’re doing to the planet, along with the way the planet changes anyway, is incredibly complicated. I also liked the unlinking of problems. I do care about the fact that we are eliminating species at an insane rate. Does that have anything to do with global warming? Some. Will it have any actual affect on me? Not at all. We eat some seafood. I like it. But if it goes away, and I don’t get salmon anymore, I won’t be broken hearted over that. I will be upset that we managed to destroy an ecosystem. But pretty much everything we eat is grown by people.
I also liked how he put the parts about the ocean levels rising, and how part of Holland has been below sea level for hundreds of years. All the vulnerable areas around Vancouver, and there are a lot, are diked. Going to take a lot of water before they go under. They can be made better. I’m sure they will.
So, I don’t believe in mass extinctions of humanity. Could get pretty awful in some spots, for sure. But wrapping it all up and saying the green plan is the answer, when there are so many questions unanswered about what that exactly means, and how eco friendly it is in the end, seems somewhat irresponsible as well. Not to mention the fact that getting the entire world to buy in, when most of them are just trying to survive from day to day, doesn’t give me a lot of hope.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 26, 2019 20:33:44 GMT -5
Extinctions happen. Remove global warming from the table, and they will still happen at about the same rate. Before global warming was the "A" list culprit, overpopulation was with its destruction of habitat due to food production, forestry, and golf courses. Before global warming was destroying the ocean, pollution, over-harvesting, and the crown of thorns starfish were. According to recent studies, street lights are right before our eyes in the here and now destroying 75% of the world's insects, according to these recent studies.
Any thoughtful and informed environmentalist understands that, compared to habitat loss due to population pressures and the resultant agriculture and ocean harvesting, climate change is just a pimple on a cancerous butt.
This is not a "so let's do nothing" argument, this is a understand the real issue argument. If extinctions are the concern, the top twenty causative factors are all connected to feeding and housing a growing population (and those inadvertent "whoopsies" humans are prone to). If they are not resolved or somehow figured out, it won't matter what we do or don't do about our part in this planet's climate. Extinctions will erupt.
Critters are remarkably adaptive, if they have a place to be remarkably adaptive in.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 26, 2019 21:17:14 GMT -5
I agree, epaul. I see it as all part of the same problem/cause. Human activity. Ans it ain’t going away. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care or strive to do better for us and the world.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 26, 2019 21:57:10 GMT -5
I agree, epaul. I see it as all part of the same problem/cause. Human activity. Ans it ain’t going away. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care or strive to do better for us and the world. What was that that Jeff was saying about neo-Malthusians?
|
|