The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 3,976 to 4,000 of 4053

  1. Post
    s0cks wrote:
    I wonder if it does play a subconscious role though. I'm serious. A lot of people do understand it is an extremely serious problem. They might not dwell on it. They might not be particularly outspoken about it. But it's their. It's now a part of their future outlook. It certainly doesn't increase optimism.
    The general public is learning that everything is bullshit and we aren't actually even trying to fix problems.

    It's all related. How can we talk about potential solutions to climate change if we aren't talking about what is causing the problem?

  2. Post
    This will be interesting: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116...criminal-court

    Wonder how Mike Smith got to Vienna? I doubt he walked there.

    Oh and this was LOL:
    Climate Minister James Shaw was asked for a response but was unable to comment because he was travelling.

  3. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    This will be interesting: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116...criminal-court

    Wonder how Mike Smith got to Vienna? I doubt he walked there.

    Oh and this was LOL:
    I’m uneasy about this too. Smith is not a traditional climate issues protestor, he’s an Iwi protestor. Yes, he’s combining the two here, but we are seeing more and more climate leaders coming out against air travel, doing more video links to conferences and being very vocal about that. Here he is, ****ing up that message.

  4. Post
    TBH: All this is just working on the edges of what is required. Huge shifts are required to avert +1.5C let alone +2.0C by 2100. Nothing I have seen to date are helping with that. We are more likely to see +3.0 to +4.0C by 2100, which will likely mean we will already be at +1.5C or +2.0C well before that.

  5. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    TBH: All this is just working on the edges of what is required. Huge shifts are required to avert +1.5C let alone +2.0C by 2100. Nothing I have seen to date are helping with that. We are more likely to see +3.0 to +4.0C by 2100, which will likely mean we will already be at +1.5C or +2.0C well before that.
    Yeah we'd have to have things like no non-essential flying.

    Just try and imagine that for a minute. ain't happening

  6. Post
    How about no non-essential people?

    I could name a few.

  7. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    Yeah we'd have to have things like no non-essential flying.

    Just try and imagine that for a minute. ain't happening
    Looking at this graph

    Name:  Paris-emission-paths.jpg
Views: 309
Size:  101.5 KB
    Real Climate

    I really cant see how we can turn our CO2 reduction into a near vertical drop, without some large scale destruction of our way of life.

    I am reminded of something I read recently. You could say that human effects on climate is a mess.

    The mistake many people make is trying to separate parts of the mess into bite size problems as puzzles to solve, without realising how interconnected other parts of the mess are to each other. Making solving the mess near impossible.

    You could say Climate Change is a Wicked Problem.
    A problem whose solution requires a great number of people to change their mindsets and behavior is likely to be a wicked problem.
    and how to solve
    Rittel hints at a collaborative approach; one which attempts "to make those people who are being affected into participants of the planning process. They are not merely asked but actively involved in the planning process". A disadvantage of this approach is that achieving a shared understanding and commitment to solving a wicked problem is a time-consuming process. Another difficulty is that, in some matters, at least one group of people may hold an absolute belief that necessarily contradicts other absolute beliefs held by other groups. Collaboration then becomes impossible until one set of beliefs is relativized or abandoned entirely.
    For this reason, I believe we really have no possibility of actually getting the steep decline in CO2 output anytime soon.
    Last edited by KiwiTT; 27th October 2019 at 6:38 am.

  8. Post
    I have passionfruit ripening at the end of October...

  9. Post
    Good on Ardern for selling out to agriculture. Nothing will change here.

  10. Post
    MXRecord wrote:
    Good on Ardern for selling out to agriculture. Nothing will change here.
    It was not a sellout. It was a pragmatic decision. Why penalise good environmental farmers who set aside part of their land with forests, and protect other ecological areas on their land?

    Carbon taxing agriculture has never been done anyway before, so why not let farmers develop a better system as opposed to having one imposed on them.

  11. Post
    scholar wrote:
    I have passionfruit ripening at the end of October...
    We had no frosts this year. My capsicum plants survived the winter. Crazy.

  12. Post
    I know this is a bit silly in a serious thread, but has this been posted here yet?

  13. Post
    I have unfriended my continuously Climate Change deniers distant relatives on Facebook. They have made their choice. I read recently that there is a relatively high 25% of people who will never be convinced and that it is best you start ignoring them and they will eventually die out. This is what made be decide to act as I did.

  14. Post
    Good Stuff [pun intended]

  15. Post

  16. Post
    I disagree with the notion that individual changes/actions are futile, and the real answer is around politics. It's multi pronged, both actions are necessary. The political actions, result in climate hurtful options being less viable (or vice versa) from a consumer decision making stand point, thus causes changes in production/industry, resulting in large scale change.

    E.g - A tariff. This makes it easier, more viable to come up with a solution to the tarriffed product, stimulating innovation for products that reverse the climate change issues.

    Getting back to individual actions... We are living in a more socially connected world than ever, you see your neighbor buy an electric vehicle, it probably causes you to look into the option of buying an EV more so than before.

    People heralding their lifestyle choices, solutions to make small changes in their own life, causes other people to contemplate some of their own actions, maybe they only take away a small chunk, e.g they just do one of the 20 things that off the grid guy is doing (or whatever). Then you just have a cycle of people passively encouraging each other to make positive changes, over time millions of people changing slightly.

    Also, with regards to above, this then changes the political landscape, it makes it easier for the incumbents to make said political changes, because the changes have already been slightly done, and people aren't being hit with a sledgehammer of changes, as they already are venturing that direction.

    As the last couple of pages of the thread is getting at (or linked articles), its super interrelated, all of it.

  17. Post
    So you have a few million kiwis making small positive changes, and several billions not giving a f***?

  18. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    So you have a few million kiwis making small positive changes, and several billions not giving a f***?
    It's not several billion though is it. I don't have the numbers, but I highly ****ing doubt that "several billions" are driving cars and jetsetting like nzers do. Several hundred million perhaps, the summation of the other wealthy countries, many of which are actively making small positive changes. A lot easier for us hundreds of millions to lean on our own, and poorer nations' governments and corporations, when we're personally making an effort.

  19. Post
    The talking point Vulcan is using above is now being ranked equivalent with complete climate change denial and climate doomerism by many leading climate change scientists and policy makers. Best to just ignore it. Like with a rabid Trump supporter, the talking point doesn’t change no matter what you present. As Prof. Michael Mann says, it’s better to focus on those who will listen, than those who won’t.

    People who wildly extrapolate outside of worst case scenarios can actually drive uneducated public away from doing anything. Those ‘doomers’ are potentially doing just as much damage to public opinion as the denialists.

  20. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    As Prof. Michael Mann says, it’s better to focus on those who will listen, than those who won’t.

    People who wildly extrapolate outside of worst case scenarios can actually drive uneducated public away from doing anything. Those ‘doomers’ are potentially doing just as much damage to public opinion as the denialists.
    Agreed. These 25%ers or so, who can never be reached are not worth the effort and maybe they will eventually die out. However, probably not soon enough as tipping points are now being reached all over the place, so who knows what cascade effects there will be.

  21. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    The talking point Vulcan is using above is now being ranked equivalent with complete climate change denial and climate doomerism by many leading climate change scientists and policy makers. Best to just ignore it. Like with a rabid Trump supporter, the talking point doesn’t change no matter what you present. As Prof. Michael Mann says, it’s better to focus on those who will listen, than those who won’t.

    People who wildly extrapolate outside of worst case scenarios can actually drive uneducated public away from doing anything. Those ‘doomers’ are potentially doing just as much damage to public opinion as the denialists.
    I'm just pointing out the fallacy of thinking we're (as in NZ) going to fix this mess. If you dig back through this thread you'll now find a lot of people saying what I said early on about what needs to be done - including battlecraps reference to a tariff.

    I'm not extrapolating anything, the climate science guys are. I simply don't think current global populations are viable. As for doomerism, you'll note through my posts I don't think that either.

    Just to give this some perspective.

    In 2017 Chinas CO2 emissions were 10777367.72 ktons, and in 2018 that grew by an additional 99850.22 ktons.

    By comparison NZ was 36794.54 ktons in 2018. If our targeted reduction is 5% per year, that is 1839.727 ktons.

    So China has been growing its CO2 output at 54 times our targeted reductions.

    But here is the kicker, if NZ stopped all CO2 emissions overnight, China would still make up for us three fold year on year. And that's just China, not including the USA and India. India is growing at just over 2 x "NZ"s per annum.

    I point this out as I simply think we are not doing the right things to make ourselves more efficient, and more self sufficient. We are moving the problem, not dealing with it.
    Last edited by Vulcan; 7th December 2019 at 9:34 am.

  22. Post
    No one said NZ can fix climate change. You're making shit up.

  23. Post
    This situation can be reduced to the following formula;

    Population Growth x Consumerism Growth = Economic Growth x Energy Growth = Environmental Disaster x Ecological Extinction

    Population Growth is slowing and expected to peak in a few decades
    Consumerism Growth continues to increase as more people become 'westernised'
    Economic Growth continues unabated but income inequity widens and it only seems to most benefit the super wealthy
    Energy Growth continues to support global consumerism and the business production required

    This then leaves the two impacts;

    Environmental Disaster is upon us, with climate changing for the worst and more extreme weather events
    Ecological Extinction is causing loss of food supplies for which we all depend on

    The last impact is the one which may also impact population growth and thereby reduce the one of the main causes

    So yeah, what this little 'paper napkin' exercise has shown is that the entire global system is interlinked is so many different ways, a multi-pronged approach is required on all four main causes, to try to avert the worst of the effects of human impacts on the planet.

    Sheesh, even if all the Paris Targets were met it will not be enough!

  24. Post
    Says he's not extrapolating things. Then proceeds to extrapolate things.

    You can't argue with cluster b kids.

  25. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Says he's not extrapolating things. Then proceeds to extrapolate things.

    You can't argue with cluster b kids.
    That is factual data from 2017, nothing extrapolated. Maybe you should get a dictionary.