If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Baroque
Active Member
I mean, you can show in a lab that chemicals we emit trap heat better than air (fill a fish tank with said chemicals and put a heat lamp over it, test its temperature vs a tank with a heat lamp and just air). So we can prove the greenhouse effect of man made chemicals. Sure there are also natural chemicals that cause a greenhouse effect but we are emitting them at faster and faster rates, why should we continue making a problem worse?
Even if you deny the provable greenhouse effect, do you want to be breathing in all the garbage emitted from factories and vehicles? Clean air is also directly beneficial to your lungs. Further we have a responsibility to future generations to keep it clean.
... I don't feel like going through all of this. The evidence is there with a couple of google searches.
Dak
mentat
Cleaning up the air because it's better for our lungs is a clear and present benefit. Trying to stabilize the global climate is quixotic.
Baroque
Active Member
They go hand in hand. We need agreements with other nations to clean up the air as well. AIr quality is shared among nations. Trump backing out of our international agreements is going to set global air quality back 30 years, if America is not holding up its end of the bargain, why should they? Dirtier air for everyone! all in the name of making more money for the rich.
Dak
mentat
http://aqicn.org/faq/2015-05-16/world-health-organization-2014-air-pollution-ranking/
The US is doing a pretty good job. Why should the US pulling out of ineffectual agreements have a detrimental effect on countries that don't give a damn already (eg China)?
Baroque
Active Member
Um it's common knowledge that China is not holding up their end of the bargain, I don't see what the point of linking that map was.
i'm talking about all the countries that are upholding the agreement. Ok China's not doing it so let's not do it too, and then the dominos fall and no country does it. Is that how you want this to play out? How about we be better than China instead of stooping to their level?
i'm talking about all the countries that are upholding the agreement. Ok China's not doing it so let's not do it too, and then the dominos fall and no country does it. Is that how you want this to play out? How about we be better than China instead of stooping to their level?
Dak
mentat
Withdrawing from an agreement that isn't being honored can be a tactic to force cooperation. Obviously honoring the agreement isn't accomplishing this with the #1 polluter. I'm not saying that is Trump's reasoning, I'm just saying that pieces of paper are just that. Exiting the agreement isn't going to suddenly reverse all of the steps that have been taken to scrub the air in the US.
rms
Active Member
outside of the 'drowning' of the Maldives and other islands, not sure what the problem is for most people or most developed countries. Short term is unable to be altered, as a near consensus of scientists argue. So nothing we can do to shift geopolitical climate problems in the middle east. So then what, we are making changes for preservation of property and real estate values in coastal wealthy nations?
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
Anyone hear about the festival in Montreal that was cancelled because of protests about Graveland? http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/pr...-black-metal-band-with-alleged-neo-nazi-ties/
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
America is a larger polluter than China per capita. Americans are a bunch of degenerate entitled hyper-consuming fucks though so it's easier to look at air pollution in particular cities in the fastest developing country in the world, even though we're the ones buying China's stuff.
Einherjar86
Active Member
And just to expand on this, the Keeling Curve reflects measurements taken on Mauna Loa, a volcano in Hawaii - far away from clogged industrial areas at lower elevations. The findings have demonstrated an increase in CO2 since the 1950s: from 310 parts per million to over 400 ppm in 2016.
We know that carbon has is a byproduct of industrial development, so it seems like a fairly uncontroversial leap to say that humans contribute to climate change.
Trump's team is currently talking about climate change as a "politicized science," and vows to return to "pure science" or "concrete science" or some bullshit like that. First of all, there is no such thing as non-politicized science; and second, climate change is based on decidedly non-political foundations. It's really just taking measurements and doing the math.
Dak
mentat
I think it'd be less controversial if it were merely stated that humans contribute to climate change patterns. But instead we get Al Gore and the Green Party.
But it isn't just that. Politics drives what research gets funded and what gets noticed and how it's interpreted.
Einherjar86
Active Member
rms
Active Member
there's the problem, the left/dems have framed the issue as 'man made' not 'man influenced.' Out of ignorance and or financial/political interests, who knows.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, that's a semantics argument, which everyone on the right apparently despises. "Man-made" or "man-influenced," what does it matter - we contribute to it and maybe some steps should be taken. Does it have any significant impact on the mentality of industrialists being asked to reduce carbon emissions whether we say "man-made" or "man-influenced"?
rms
Active Member
I think being truthful is very important, if you say man made you are wrong. Then the discussion starts (and likely stops) there instead of "we are influencing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Should we stop? If so, what should we do?".
it's not just industrialists, we as a society as to look at ourselves and our consumption. Especially those who live in S. California and ruin the world with their greedy choice of living (kidding about the especially)
it's not just industrialists, we as a society as to look at ourselves and our consumption. Especially those who live in S. California and ruin the world with their greedy choice of living (kidding about the especially)
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
You don't need to be kidding about that part, people in SoCal waste a ridiculous amount of water trying to turn a desert into something else.
imo the most sensible and direct way to attack over-consumption is just to tax the shit out of consumption. Obviously it would drastically slow and change our economy, and I'm not a fan of introducing any new kinds of taxes (because once we have a VAT, that's never going away), but it's much more immediate solution than what we have now. Even Germany, one of the greenest developed nations in the world while also the most industrious and most expensive energy-wise, is well above average in terms of CO2 production. That's of course a result of them being an economic powerhouse, creating supplies that virtually all of Europe consumes, but the point is that our technology isn't yet at the point that makes really tackling the issue feasible, all we can do is slow things a little. You really want to stop it, you have to get back to the culture of the 70s and earlier where people actually had their goods (TVs, etc) fixed rather than replaced, and make it painful on your wallet to drive when not necessary.
And, of course, you need to reduce the supply of consumers as well. Bring back eugenics and work towards a one-child policy aside from a handful of genetically superior ubermensch.
imo the most sensible and direct way to attack over-consumption is just to tax the shit out of consumption. Obviously it would drastically slow and change our economy, and I'm not a fan of introducing any new kinds of taxes (because once we have a VAT, that's never going away), but it's much more immediate solution than what we have now. Even Germany, one of the greenest developed nations in the world while also the most industrious and most expensive energy-wise, is well above average in terms of CO2 production. That's of course a result of them being an economic powerhouse, creating supplies that virtually all of Europe consumes, but the point is that our technology isn't yet at the point that makes really tackling the issue feasible, all we can do is slow things a little. You really want to stop it, you have to get back to the culture of the 70s and earlier where people actually had their goods (TVs, etc) fixed rather than replaced, and make it painful on your wallet to drive when not necessary.
And, of course, you need to reduce the supply of consumers as well. Bring back eugenics and work towards a one-child policy aside from a handful of genetically superior ubermensch.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Similar threads
