No need to recycle

[Petra]

I am sorry, but until the big polluters really decide to cut down on emissions and go green, not much is gonna happen
evn if 2 billion individuals decided to start recycilng, they aren't the really big polluters.

This isn't quite accurate Groderick. It's definitely true that if we want to meet the necessary targets to keep warming below 1.5-2 degrees on a global scale, large industrial players and governments have to make big steps, but it's also important that individuals (as part of a collective) do also. You're right, recycling itself won't have as big an impact as campaigns often try and make us believe, but if 2 billion individuals switch to public transport, reduce their meat consumption significantly, improve their energy efficiency etc... it will have a notable and significant impact. Depending on how you assess and which analysis you use, livestock is something like 15-20% of total global emissions, with agriculture overall being 25%. Transport is about 15%.

Plastic is a slightly different issue, although admittedly heavily interlinked with the idea of climate change too. Plastic pollution is a huge problem, and I think it's one in many ways we only now seem to be really starting to explore the ramifications of. It's also an issue that's rightly gained public attention recently. Particularly interesting to see the influence of just one TV show (Blue Planet) on that public perception in the UK. Some plastic can be a net positive (low weight wrapping for perishable goods that significantly extend their shelf life for example), but it's very hard for a consumer to work out that benefit, and frankly the big industry players don't make it easy.

The really positive thing about the increasing consciousness about plastic, and to an extent climate change, is that consumers actively try and make, and campaign for, more positive choices. That in itself creates a momentum that influences those big players you mentioned to change their own practice. It would just be pretty nice if it all started happening a bit faster!

On a sidenote, I'm dazzled by Itesh' fluent Double Dutch.

[Aira]

What's the official technical term in Dutch for that dung/acre ratio?

Fosfaatruimte, or phosphateroom/ phosphatespace. It's the amount of animal dung/ fertilizer that can be put on a piece of land per calender year. Grassland is 70kg per 2.47 acre, other nature type land is 20kg per 2.47 acre. All part of the manurelaw or meststoffenwet.

There's also a national quotum, as dictated by the European Union.

[Astolfo]

What's the official technical term in Dutch for that dung/acre ratio?

Fosfaatruimte, or phosphateroom/ phosphatespace. It's the amount of animal dung/ fertilizer that can be put on a piece of land per calender year. Grassland is 70kg per 2.47 acre, other nature type land is 20kg per 2.47 acre. All part of the manurelaw or meststoffenwet.

There's also a national quotum, as dictated by the European Union.

Dutch. Least it's all in letters I can read. Hahahaha.

[Maghus]

One of the best articles on climate change I have ever read.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/ ... n-new-deal

I have long felt that the way we talk about addressing environmental problems is incredibly inadequate or else violently inconsiderate of the human lives that are the most vulnerable and cannot afford to just opt out of fossil fuel systems. I don't think the article per se focuses enough on collective action models because clearly those methods have been failing us - large scale protests didn't particularly improve sluggish climate change accords. But it really picks up on what's wrong with this personal responsibility model.

We are heading into an ice age and no amount of protesting and yelling 'drumpf' is going to save you. It happens about every 125k years. Ironically the only way to slow it down is to increase CO2 emissions. Perhaps purposefully melting the ice caps could help, which they may already be doing. You can see by the chart that we are holding off the big drop so far, but I doubt it will last. It's amazing to me how many people just read headlines and think they are now climate scientists, without ever actually looking at the empirical data. All of the charts they show people in school and on the news only show the last part of my chart, where it is rising constantly. They say 'Look at the graph, it is constantly going up! How can climate change deniers not see this!' It is pure propaganda. But if you see the long term chart, like this one, you see that it has happened many times already, long before carbon emissions from a technologically advanced civilization existed. This is why the global warming hoax is misleading and is the very definition of fake news.

[Joolis]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[segioda]

Maghus, can I ask why you believe the scientists who compiled the data set you are quoting, but refuse to believe the exact same scientists when they now tell you that human activities are inducing climate change? Do you think they are right on one and lying about the other?

[Reyne]

But if you see the long term chart, like this one, you see that it has happened many times already, long before carbon emissions from a technologically advanced civilization existed. This is why the global warming hoax is misleading and is the very definition of fake news.

That's because the graph you're using cuts off before modern day. Also, look at the red line lol because it definitely shows CO2 is now higher than it ever was?

How are you gonna post ONE graph showing what YOU want then say AHA THIS IS PROOF!!! Yeah? What about all the other data that says no actually you're dead wrong and humans are definitely causing ecological disaster? Doesn't matter - Disconfirmation Bias means you pay attention to the data you want and ignore the rest I suppose.

Here is basically the same graph, just with only the CO2 line to make it less confusing:



Another chart, showing other gases besides CO2 (Nitrous Oxide and Methane; they are also going up at an unprecedented rate):



CO2 chart, 1000AD to modern day (showing the 415 ppm levels):




Global warming hoax lol. At least the Flat Earthers are relatively harmless but this denialism is literally endangering the lives of millions/billions just so fossil fuel companies can keep making inordinate amounts of money. You know how many people die every year due to respiratory ailments brought on by fossil fuel burning pollution? Millions. Thousands every day. Makes Chernobyl look like a nice summer picnic.

Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years (basically as far back as we are able to measure). That is a FACT. Aside from that, we're dumping plastic everywhere, garbage everywhere, heavy metals everywhere, chemicals everywhere, depleting ocean stocks, massacring wild life, clear cutting rainforest, acidifying the oceans, and so on. It's not JUST about the CO2 levels, it's the whole "let's ignore climate to make number go up" shebang. I was going to say 'make more money' but really it is just numbers in a high score table at this point for the ultrarich, no?

But also, that graph doesn't even show what you think it does.

Your own source here shows that CO2 (the red line) hasn't ever been so high. Looks like it baaaaarely eked above 300 ppm in the past. Well, CO2 levels are now 415 ppm. Over a 25% increase vs the absolutely maximum historical CO2 number over such a short time is... nothing to do with humans?

If it is just a natural process that has nothing to do with humans, why does your own chart show a MASSIVE spike when we get to the 0 point whereas the "natural process" thus far was a slow decline back to ~180 ppm? Other than humans, what could possibly be driving that?

What about all the other gases like Methane or Nitrous Oxide that are clearly at historical highs, too? Not nearly as much of a up/down cycle for those in the last few hundred thousand years and yet suddenly we are seeing a huge spike there, too.

Let me ask you this though: what evidence would you need to see to believe that climate change is a serious issue? I bet it already exists. If there is no evidence that would sway you, then you're not arguing or posting graphs in good faith.

[Reyne]

Perhaps purposefully melting the ice caps could help, which they may already be doing.

Help who? Rich people? What happens when millions of pissed off refugees arrive at the border because nations like Chile are just underwater? What's the plan then because so far Trump is just doing his best impression at concentration camps but for toddlers and declaring national emergencies over a few thousand migrants. Are we just gonna say "tough luck" as the rotors on the wall mounted machine guns spin up?

[Tandrael]

I thought we knew by now that Maghus is a troll, and it's not worth arguing with him.

[Groderick]

I am sorry, but until the big polluters really decide to cut down on emissions and go green, not much is gonna happen
evn if 2 billion individuals decided to start recycilng, they aren't the really big polluters.

This isn't quite accurate Groderick. It's definitely true that if we want to meet the necessary targets to keep warming below 1.5-2 degrees on a global scale, large industrial players and governments have to make big steps, but it's also important that individuals (as part of a collective) do also. You're right, recycling itself won't have as big an impact as campaigns often try and make us believe, but if 2 billion individuals switch to public transport, reduce their meat consumption significantly, improve their energy efficiency etc... it will have a notable and significant impact. Depending on how you assess and which analysis you use, livestock is something like 15-20% of total global emissions, with agriculture overall being 25%. Transport is about 15%.

Plastic is a slightly different issue, although admittedly heavily interlinked with the idea of climate change too. Plastic pollution is a huge problem, and I think it's one in many ways we only now seem to be really starting to explore the ramifications of. It's also an issue that's rightly gained public attention recently. Particularly interesting to see the influence of just one TV show (Blue Planet) on that public perception in the UK. Some plastic can be a net positive (low weight wrapping for perishable goods that significantly extend their shelf life for example), but it's very hard for a consumer to work out that benefit, and frankly the big industry players don't make it easy.

The really positive thing about the increasing consciousness about plastic, and to an extent climate change, is that consumers actively try and make, and campaign for, more positive choices. That in itself creates a momentum that influences those big players you mentioned to change their own practice. It would just be pretty nice if it all started happening a bit faster!

On a sidenote, I'm dazzled by Itesh' fluent Double Dutch.

I both agree and disagree.

And I will explain myself on why I disagree. Those big players are actually are not only product manufacturers, they are also setting up trends and are "producing" (mostly successfully) the desire for the societies to consume comodities that can live without. And this is the main issue. Many campaigns are actually concealing on who mainly is at fault. Moreover, they are concealing that the production/extraction of some materials that are not "to blame" (yet) for climate change, lead to on going wars, much like Sudan.

All in all, while i do agree that people should change habits, they are actually disempowered to do so, unless that "Green" Capitalists actually manage to set the trends globally, and even then, the changes that will take effect would be what will cause economic gain for the few and not what will necessarily increase the quality of life of All. After all, Mother Nature and Climate Change has become a new, big bussiness sector, and that is generally a CURSE