Options

Climate Change or: Is it hot in here? And cold? And on fire? And Underwater?!

1356

Posts

  • Options
    HevachHevach Registered User regular
    A person's inability to take their own advice doesn't diminish the value of their advice. It only makes them an asshole.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    The whole article is making a point that carbon taxes would work really well and that they need to be implemented.

    But there were some dumb lines in there that made me go "why did the editors think this was a good line?"

  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Yeah, if you're saying "these people are hypocrites, some of them drive cars" it's... like, context, holy shit. Everybody shorten your showers substantially so I can grow 15 more almonds this year, etc.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Like I normally really like the Economist and its work. I find it extremely valuable.

    But man lines like that are just fucking stupid

  • Options
    wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    38thDoe wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/02/09/the-truth-about-big-oil-and-climate-change
    According to ExxonMobil, global oil and gas demand will rise by 13% by 2030. All of the majors, not just ExxonMobil, are expected to expand their output. Far from mothballing all their gasfields and gushers, the industry is investing in upstream projects from Texan shale to high-tech deep-water wells. Oil companies, directly and through trade groups, lobby against measures that would limit emissions. The trouble is that, according to an assessment by the IPCC, an intergovernmental climate-science body, oil and gas production needs to fall by about 20% by 2030 and by about 55% by 2050, in order to stop the Earth’s temperature rising by more than 1.5°C above its pre-industrial level.

    It would be wrong to conclude that the energy firms must therefore be evil. They are responding to incentives set by society. The financial returns from oil are higher than those from renewables. For now, worldwide demand for oil is growing by 1-2% a year, similar to the average over the past five decades—and the typical major derives a minority of its stockmarket value from profits it will make after 2030. However much the majors are vilified by climate warriors, many of whom drive cars and take planes, it is not just legal for them to maximise profits, it is also a requirement that shareholders can enforce.

    I'm so sick of this line of attack. People are saying that we need to reduce our carbon footprint but they also have a carbon footprint so we can safely disregard everything they are saying. Al Gore flies more than the average person and lives in a house so we can ignore him. Just writing this I realize that this is whataboutism. Its amazingly effective for how stupid it is.
    I've always maintained that it's better to be hypocritically correct about something than assiduously wrong

  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    So there's a new article in Guardian that has some extremely fucking dire news. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
    If insect species losses cannot be halted, this will have catastrophic consequences for both the planet’s ecosystems and for the survival of mankind,” said Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, at the University of Sydney, Australia, who wrote the review with Kris Wyckhuys at the China Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing.

    The 2.5% rate of annual loss over the last 25-30 years is “shocking”, Sánchez-Bayo told the Guardian: “It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.

    There are suggestions about what might be done to mitigate this in the piece, but this is bone deep terrifying. I don't think humans can exist in a world without insects.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Feinstein is taking a lot of heat today for being awful when some kids spoke to her about the Green New Deal



    The Sunrise Movement is an organizational group for students and young people focused around climate change

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Wow. "I just won an election, so STFU."

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Lol feinstein

    To be fair it's not like the kids know what they're talking about

  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Yeah they're kids. But they're kids getting involved in politics which should be encouraged. If that were a Republican we would be crowing about what an asshole they were being. Feinstein was an asshole.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    I mean yeah Feinstein was an asshole no denying that.

    But also I sometimes have real issue with bringing kids into these types of situations. More often than not they feel like pawns rather than individuals acting on their own thoughts.

  • Options
    NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    The proper response would've been thanking them for coming, praising them for caring about how we can be good stewards to our planet, and assuring them that the New Green Deal will receive the same kind of consideration as other pieces of legislation.

    In other words, giving the kids a positive experience while not committing to anything. Which should be easy for someone with Feinstein's experience. Because while, yeah, these kids are probably being used in a weaponized context here, the last thing she should want to do is potentially create a lasting negative experience wrt engaging directly with politicians/politics. Keep these kids passionate and engaged.

  • Options
    ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    "I've been doing this for thirty years"

    and yet here we are

    stellar work

  • Options
    CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    On further reflection, that video reads to me like they caught her at a bad moment. That wouldn't excuse her behavior, obviously; but it does make me curious about what she was doing immediately before.

  • Options
    ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    maybe she just took a check from PG&E

    edit: i would also dispute the idea that children are being "weaponized" by fairly pointing out that they would appreciate having a future. would y'all be opposed to a bunch of school shooting survivors asking why a GOP politician loves guns so much?

    Elendil on
  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    The proper response would've been thanking them for coming, praising them for caring about how we can be good stewards to our planet, and assuring them that the New Green Deal will receive the same kind of consideration as other pieces of legislation.

    In other words, giving the kids a positive experience while not committing to anything. Which should be easy for someone with Feinstein's experience. Because while, yeah, these kids are probably being used in a weaponized context here, the last thing she should want to do is potentially create a lasting negative experience wrt engaging directly with politicians/politics. Keep these kids passionate and engaged.

    This. Getting youth engaged in politics is hard enough already, actively discouraging them is not helpful.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    So like, there's trotting kids out at a rally or speech or something, and that's bad. That's using them as a prop, and it's the same regardless of if it's kids or adults or whatever.

    This is kids engaging with a politician in a much more informal setting to ask questions and whatever. This is a good thing.

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Apparently it's a poorly edited hit job.



    Thread with the full video in six parts. Mediaite person.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    I think there's a difference between middle schoolers and high schoolers engaging in politics with questions and answers and the such, and having like 8 year olds who are parroting things their parents say

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Like, that's not a class being taken to meet and Q&A with the senator, cause teachers get in lots of shit for that kind of thing

  • Options
    ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    a couple minutes in and so far she's said we can't afford it and definitely not by reducing our exremely vital military funding (gee thanks not like it's important) it won't pass (better not try! i'm sure the republican compromise will do the job) and reminds them that they're not her constituents because they're too young to have voted for her

    well i'm convinced

    Elendil on
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Elendil wrote: »
    a couple minutes in and so far she's said we can't afford it and definitely not by reducing our exremely vital military funding (gee thanks not like it's important) it won't pass (better not try! i'm sure the republican compromise will do the job) and reminds them that they're not her constituents because they're too young to have voted for her

    well i'm convinced

    Watch the whole thing, she's engaging with all of them, both as a group and individually.

    She talks to everyone and it's actually pretty damn good.

    Also hey, guess what, lots of people in the energy policy/econ world aren't convinced by the Green New Deal! There's a whole lot of talk on the subject, and people that are experts in this field and have dedicated their life to it have put lots of thought into it!

  • Options
    Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    Apparently it's a poorly edited hit job.



    Thread with the full video in six parts. Mediaite person.

    Still quite condescending and dismissive, especially given who she is meeting with.

  • Options
    ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    i mean the "back and forth" is just her telling those kids that they're fucked

    right, like we're on the same page here? do we disagree with the twelve year figure? do we think dianne feinstein actually has a plan that'll pass with republican support that'll actually hit that target?

  • Options
    skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    She's literally a climate denier, we coulda had KDL instead.

    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    The full-length video makes her look worse, if anything. The idea that trimming it down to under Twitter's maximum is somehow an edited hit job is patently unconvincing.

    That wealthy and powerful climate deniers can plan to die of old age as people in the rest of the world are starting to die of climate change is nothing short of mass murder.

  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Nightslyr wrote: »
    The proper response would've been thanking them for coming, praising them for caring about how we can be good stewards to our planet, and assuring them that the New Green Deal will receive the same kind of consideration as other pieces of legislation.

    In other words, giving the kids a positive experience while not committing to anything. Which should be easy for someone with Feinstein's experience. Because while, yeah, these kids are probably being used in a weaponized context here, the last thing she should want to do is potentially create a lasting negative experience wrt engaging directly with politicians/politics. Keep these kids passionate and engaged.

    That's the proper PR response if the kids are asking for something trivial. The proper response now would be to address the most urgent existential threat facing humanity with an appropriate level of seriousness, not to admit that you've presided over the past 30 years of failing to solve the problem.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    The full-length video makes her look worse, if anything. The idea that trimming it down to under Twitter's maximum is somehow an edited hit job is patently unconvincing.

    That wealthy and powerful climate deniers can plan to die of old age as people in the rest of the world are starting to die of climate change is nothing short of mass murder.

    The divide is less left and right and more "oh shit" vs "fuck you Ill be dead in 20 years"

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    The full-length video makes her look worse, if anything. The idea that trimming it down to under Twitter's maximum is somehow an edited hit job is patently unconvincing.

    That wealthy and powerful climate deniers can plan to die of old age as people in the rest of the world are starting to die of climate change is nothing short of mass murder.

    The divide is less left and right and more "oh shit" vs "fuck you Ill be dead in 20 years"

    "any my grandkids will be on the right side of each successive wall that's built"

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    Ok, which do you think we will get through sooner. Fully proportionally representive government through constitutional amendment, or Pelosis plan?

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    Carbon neutrality before 2050 will require major technological breakthroughs and massive use of nuclear power, like, we break ground on a 100 new plants next year and some invents solar panels which are 5x better than the amazing ones we already invented. The green new deal opposes nuclear power, so it’s actualy worse than pelosis plan.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    Who are energy experts?

    Honestly the difference between what some people claim is the danger vs what they propose to address it is fucking wild.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    I think what bill we push depends on what our immediate goal is. Do we want something we can symbolically endorse, understanding that it won't pass congress for at least two years, if then, but which can shift the conversation on climate change? Then the GND is a decent bill.

    Do we want something we actually want to get passed and signed now? Then we can assemble something exceptionally modest that we can use as a first step towards more useful solutions.

    Now, I don't mind the first option. That's legit. And the second option is defensible, and that's what it seems like Feinstein is pushing.

    But the GND is a nonstarter, and acting like we can pull enough votes to even get it through the Senate much less override the inevitable veto is patently ridiculous. Neither the GND, nor anything resembling it, is getting past both congress and Trump, and pretending that it can happen is just wishful thinking.

    Feinstein was kind of dismissive, and the optics of talking down to a bunch of kids are shitty, but the substance of what she was saying - that there's no way the GND is a viable bill to get passed in this political environment - is hard to argue with.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"

    She's not wrong when she says we still gotta pass something and having a piece of legislation that gets Republicans on board is more valuable than one that alienates them

    Spoiler: Nothing is going to get them on board, it's a waste of time trying.

    There are conservatives that want climate change regulations and carbon taxes and the like. I work with some of them.

    Ignoring half the country isn't going to get things done. We need a lot of big policy now and getting stakeholders in energy intensive industries and relevant representatives on board will help.

    There are conservatives who you might convince to do a couple things that will amount to nothing.
    Don't think there's anything wrong with her response saying "we have a proposal, take a look at it and tell us what you think"
    Last I checked her plan called for carbon neutrality by 2050. Its a joke.

    That's what most plans have called for up to now. It's what most energy experts expect is possible and feasible.

    "If we maintain the status quo and military force projection representing more spending than the next 8-highest spending countries combined, we can't do much very quickly" is not the compelling argument you think it is.

    That some conservative voters also recognize the crisis doesn't mean that we've had decades of bipartisan agreement on kicking the can down the road until we're irreversably fucked.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Option 2 presupposes anything getting A. past trump or B. a veto-proof majority. Both of which are *extremely* unlikely for anything. Add up the Senators and tell me who you'd expect would vote for *any* climate plan that gets us to 67?

This discussion has been closed.