As long as he 'cares' though.
As long as he 'cares' though.
He's swimming to his conference in Amsterdam.
He's got The Group biking/walking to work to offset his emissions.
'Could one of you lads maybe give up meat for six weeks? Me and the wife could really use a cheeky city break, and...'
Birds don't even have a concept of convenience or consequences. Or climate change.Originally Posted by Yevrah
All the people travelling to those meets for a start.
Let's say I agree with all of those, what's your point?
I used to 'care' a lot (not enough to do anything differently, of course) but then I carefully went over the IPCC report(s) and now I 'care' much less, since all the REALLY BAD STUFF that the media tells you will most definitely happen in the next twenty years unless we completely change everything we do is simply not based on anything 'the scientists' have said. The bad stuff that the reports say might happen doesn't actually seem all that bad to me. Not worse than making rash decisions that might lead to decreased economic output, at least.
I only care because snow is cool, heatwaves are shit and now - because of fucking Kiko - we get barely any of the former and far too many of the latter. Meatheaded cunt.
Putting denial vs scaremongering to one side and assuming that we're fucked if we don't meet the targets, then the rub of all this can be perfectly summed up in this graph:
In order to limit temperature increases to between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees we need to cut 2017 carbon emission levels by 45% within 10 years from now maximum. The even worse news? Some estimates have the carbon emissions on a run rate as high as 42b tonnes for 2019. Great progress so far I'm sure you'll agree.
Now I appreciate I come across as a uncaring wanker at times, which may be true to some degree, but it stems from having a realistic and pragmatic approach to most things and that same approach to that graph and the numbers following on from it tells me we are fucked, completely fucked when it comes to meeting these targets. They are simply not going to be met by the current approach.
And then I ask myself the next question, why aren't we going to meet them? And the only answer is that 'we', as a collective, don't care enough to do anything about it. If any of you have any evidence that shows we do care, that can explain a 20% increase in carbon emissions from 2017-2019, going completely the wrong way towards a 45% targeted reduction, then I'm all ears.
I went out in a small jacket yesterday. In November. That's fucked.
You can't blame being a manlet on climate change.
Even if it’s all real, we don’t need to worry about it.
That what birds do has nothing to do with why humans do what they do because the context is so spectacularly different.
Agree with this. We are not doing enough so ultimately humanity will be buggered in the next 100 years.Putting denial vs scaremongering to one side and assuming that we're fucked if we don't meet the targets, then the rub of all this can be perfectly summed up in this graph:
In order to limit temperature increases to between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees we need to cut 2017 carbon emission levels by 45% within 10 years from now maximum. The even worse news? Some estimates have the carbon emissions on a run rate as high as 42b tonnes for 2019. Great progress so far I'm sure you'll agree.
Now I appreciate I come across as a uncaring wanker at times, which may be true to some degree, but it stems from having a realistic and pragmatic approach to most things and that same approach to that graph and the numbers following on from it tells me we are fucked, completely fucked when it comes to meeting these targets. They are simply not going to be met by the current approach.
And then I ask myself the next question, why aren't we going to meet them? And the only answer is that 'we', as a collective, don't care enough to do anything about it. If any of you have any evidence that shows we do care, that can explain a 20% increase in carbon emissions from 2017-2019, going completely the wrong way towards a 45% targeted reduction, then I'm all ears.
No, it won't.
You can say that all you want but once Bangladesh goes underwater and and India erupts into civil war it's gonna be impossible to roll back.
So it's just scaremongering?
Who cares if Bangladesh sinks into the sea? We'll just fence the West off and sorry lads last orders was thirty years ago.
Do you actually believe that?
I'm not sat here lolling at the thought of it, but if/when push comes to shove that's what will happen. We aren't going to take billions of people in.
Saying that humanity will be fucked in 100 years, in my opinion, is.
Some places will get nicer, some places will get much worse, but it will all slowly happen. It is not like Bangladesh will one day be under water. They have been struggling with continuous floods for decades, and the rest of us are still fine. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be a poor farmer living over there, but even if we were to suddenly stop all sea level rise, they are still poor and vulnerable to any weather event. A solar panel won't save them. Economic development would, yet that one tends to go against first world environmentalists desires, so they are screwed either way.
How's this world going to look then if/when mass migration has to occur? No idea what's going to happen to food supply lines with the mass extinction occuring. Could be properly ugly scenes.
The population projections of half of these countries make me think they will have torn themselves to pieces long before the tide comes in anyway.
Cheers.
For me it depends on how the world responds to the change in temperature and how much of nature it takes out.
You're making the same mistake that so many people do, that because we have opposable thumbs, drink latte and read the Guardian we're somehow on a different level to the rest of nature. We're not. If we were, then we'd be on the way to a 45% reduction instead of making it worse.
I do agree that how much resources we decide to just blast through without much planning (arable land, freshwater, fossil fuels, etc.) will ultimately decide how fucked we are (or how quickly we fuck off). I guess my main issue with climate change is that it just eats everything up in terms of conversation with some sort of weird fatalistic view and very specific targeting of electricity generation. How we use our resources is a major long-term issue, climate change or not. Changing weather makes everything worse, yes, but I don't think that it is the main factor. Take Bangladesh again. Their bigger issue is being poor as fuck, not a 2 vs 3 degree raise in temperatures.
My prediction is that when 2100 hits, all countries that are 'nice' now will still be nice. Some 'shitholes' will be less so, while some will probably be completely reshaped.
If we were on our way to 45% reduction within the time ranges that the media claims 'scientists' claim we should, we would be much worse.
Yeah, power generation is a weird fixation. Even if you could solar power the entire third world some sort of decent economic foundations to build upon, once they started to expect something for that growth wouldn't producing and utilising the amount of concrete and steel required to replace all of the bamboo/mud huts and dirt roads negate those savings?
Yes, we are. Arguing the opposite is completely moronic.
Deep down we're not.
All the nice things we have might give the illusion of being so, but trust me, if things get difficult on a worldwide scale, truly difficult, it will be clear to all that we're not.
Don't forget all that delicious meat they will expect to (and deserve to, imo) eat.
Places like Shanghai and Miami can build effective seawalls or something, Dhaka won't and even a selfish prick has incentive to care about preventing inexorable social collapse in a nuclear-armed nation.
There's plenty of other examples too, it's not just the subcontinent
We would have said the same about Shanghai thirty years ago. Poverty is Dhaka's main issue, not coal.
And the flooding of the nation won't be an issue in helping them out of poverty?
Rich countries deal with floods better than poor countries do. Remember all the paranoia surrounding Harvey? Didn't it kill less than 100 people? Any minor storm kills more than that every year in México. Point being, if you want people in Dhaka to be fine, you are better off helping them become rich, not trying to force them to stop building coal power plants.
You're making the mistake of anthropomorphising animal behaviour by attributing human-level concepts to their decision-making and then saying "look, humans are the same!"
Whether we engage in shitty behaviours or not doesn't make us the 'same as the animals', because they don't even have any concept that there is such a thing as shitty behaviour, or convenience, or whatever else. If we act like cunts we know it; that's a totally different decision making process.
But I'm probably being a boring nobend so that'll probably do.
Last edited by randomlegend; 03-11-2019 at 11:00 PM.
That's exactly my point. Lol.
Glad we are in agreement then. Try to be more clear next time. Lol or something.
Had a quick look to see how much damage forest fires have done to the US. 7 million acres a year. 700 miles of the Amazon was chopped down this year alone. It's a fucking impossible task to make up that deficit on charity alone.
Not sure I agree with this.
A bird will fly the most direct path from A to B - because it is the most convenient - they may not understand the concept of convenience, but they surely understand the practicality. Same with consequence - if you drop bird seed into the middle of a pack of foxes - they aint going to go get it - as they understand they will be torn apart. Bird arent completely braindead.
Queensland farmers would clear every tree left if they had the chance.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...23-p51qj3.html
The scumbags in North QLD and the chinese will have left us with massive deadspots visable from space at the end of this shit show. Fucking rednecks are a different species.
Last edited by Queenslander; 04-11-2019 at 07:45 AM.
I don't disagree with anything you've said but it doesn't disagree with the point I'm making either.
I can't believe RL is actually having to have this argument.
For what it's worth, I agree with RL - just not on the specific point about birds
I think Yevrah's initial post was more artistic/philosophical than an attempt at hard-nosed scientific analysis of the similarities between humans and birds.
We don't have beaks, either.
Tried to fly this morning. Broke my arm. Thanks Yevrah.
Great news! And again another article that is really drawing out the wife beaters.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-...02?pfmredir=smIt would make the Matildas the first female team in world football to be guaranteed equal pay to their male counterparts
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
