Thread: Three-Quarters of Climate Change is Man-Made

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Ahh, I amend my statement, people need to stop being total fatass morons.

Really though I don't think demand in China and india will exceed what it is in the states, though it may match it. There's a lot more poverty in those areas from what I understand. They have more people but a higher percentage of them won't be able to afford luxuries like meat everyday and 2 cars in every driveway.

Most of China's land is already devoted to food production (and to supply 300 million people with meat, 80% of our freshwater in one of the most fresh water-abundant nations, is consumed! It's really outrageous... even if China meets our demand, they won't physically have enough water to drink... and there are already nations that have major drought problems.) It's just crazy... beef takes over 10 times the energy to produce one kcal of protein energy compared to a plant-based protein... I mean, come on people, do you really need THAT much meat? Even taking 3 days a week off would save HUGE amounts of energy and water, as well as fossil fuels. It also saves you from the antibiotics and hormones that they inject in animals to make them fatter and tastier and less disease-ridden.

If everyone decided to go "vegetarian" for one meal a day, that would reduce our demand for meat by 30% and our fresh water consumption to feed said animals by 30%... it would use less farmland, too. Same thing with making purchases, instead of owning two gas-guzzlers, how about 1 efficient vehicle, or instead of 3 computers and televisions per family of four, maybe just one computer and one or two TVs... that kind of change would cut the manufacturing and energy costs in half for that specific industry...

What happened to moderation? We need some more consciousness in our consumption; we can still consume... just less. (It would help our credit-card debt problems, too!)

/rant

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

We'd have to rethink our definition of "economic growth" then; since more people are becoming wealthier in developing nations, they have massive increases in demand; in China, the car is becoming a new status symbol; imagine adding another 1-2 billion cars to the equation in India and China... compared to the mere 200-300 million in the United States. That's a huuuge amount more. Then to build housing and develop farmland, more trees need to be cut down for the farmland, (and their demand for meat in increasing, if it hits the American demand for meat, it will be literally unsustainable to the point where over 100% of the land in China and India would have to be used for farmland... doesn't seem too feasible to me.)

To feed our OWN demand in the United States, 300 million meat eaters require 50% of the land and 80% of the fresh water for agriculture alone... but in a nation of similar size with an extra 800 million... that much land and fresh water doesn't even exist, and their demand for beef is already growing exponentially. (THIS is where the problem lies; we can't "stop" because demand is ever-increasing... and people are unwilling to cut their material consumption down.)

They use our land in Australia lol
That's how they do it.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Same thing with making purchases, instead of owning two gas-guzzlers, how about 1 efficient vehicle, or instead of 3 computers and televisions per family of four, maybe just one computer and one or two TVs... that kind of change would cut the manufacturing and energy costs in half for that specific industry...

What happened to moderation? We need some more consciousness in our consumption; we can still consume... just less. (It would help our credit-card debt problems, too!)

A lot of this would be solved if electronics were made in their country of sale. Instead of China or India.
Cost would go up too much for most people to afford so many devices.
Our economic system is only helpful when people aren't being exploited.
When I can buy a 50" LED TV after working at a pizza shop for 10 hours, someone's being fucked over big time.

Originally Posted by cmind

I don't know whether the graph as presented is accurate or not, but you are ignoring a key error factor. CO2 has been measured at frequent and precise intervals in recent times, but cannot be measured in such a way when looking at proxy data. IF CO2 fluctuates frequently over time, the recent data would show it but the past data would not, because it's encompassing larger time periods for each data point. Does this make sense?

If the modern rise were a typical fluctuation, fluctuations have high amplitudes and last for more than a century; for the kind of 'bleeding' of data you are suggesting (and I'm not sure how that would happen or what your evidence is that ice cores have this level of inaccuracy), it would have to be so severe that it could flatten out an entire century's worth of high or low CO2 levels.

Originally Posted by tommo

They use our land in Australia lol
That's how they do it.


A lot of this would be solved if electronics were made in their country of sale. Instead of China or India.
Cost would go up too much for most people to afford so many devices.
Our economic system is only helpful when people aren't being exploited.
When I can buy a 50" LED TV after working at a pizza shop for 10 hours, someone's being fucked over big time.

Localization is a HUGE part of sustainability anymore; food that is local is fresher and doesn't require Genetic Mod. to make it "last". Products that are local require less transportation and support a local economy. It would cost more, but I'm willing to pay for that extra cost, because it supports the area, and I don't "need" multiple flatscreen televisions... And heating like Geothermal is wonderful; it's a one time cost when you construct a new building, and pays off in about 15 years, since you don't need any gas or power other than electricity for a small pump to circulate the system. You can heat a home AT your home, rather than have a gas company deliver propane by truck or gas by pipeline!

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Localization is a HUGE part of sustainability anymore; food that is local is fresher and doesn't require Genetic Mod. to make it "last". Products that are local require less transportation and support a local economy. It would cost more, but I'm willing to pay for that extra cost, because it supports the area, and I don't "need" multiple flatscreen televisions... And heating like Geothermal is wonderful; it's a one time cost when you construct a new building, and pays off in about 15 years, since you don't need any gas or power other than electricity for a small pump to circulate the system. You can heat a home AT your home, rather than have a gas company deliver propane by truck or gas by pipeline!

That isn't really feasible everywhere. If I were to live on "local goods" where I live in Norway, it's have to live on milk, ale and potatoes.

I think the problem is that the instead of trying to educate people the politians instead thought of ways to increase their power using the situation, and keep trying to pass more tax laws and stuff.

So instead of a message of, you need to cut down on consumption, and it will also make you healthier, you get the message of, we need higher taxes that will harm large business and force a lot of people out of work. So of course people are opposed to the second message.

Its the opposition to new taxes and fees that drives people to say climate change isn't real.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think the problem is that the instead of trying to educate people the politians instead thought of ways to increase their power using the situation, and keep trying to pass more tax laws and stuff.

So instead of a message of, you need to cut down on consumption, and it will also make you healthier, you get the message of, we need higher taxes that will harm large business and force a lot of people out of work. So of course people are opposed to the second message.

Its the opposition to new taxes and fees that drives people to say climate change isn't real.

One of the problems I see in the libertarian and certainly the conservative movements (not to turn this into another political thread) is that in their efforts to undermine the state (or whatever it is that conservatives want, who knows), they start opposing anything and everything it says. This includes scientific matters. If the U.S. government, for example, releases a report saying global warming is man-made or something, regardless of whether the science is actually solid, you'll have that group that opposes it strictly based on the fact that the U.S. government is saying it. It's really annoying to see otherwise logical people stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA-LA-LA-LA." It's similar to seeing creationists attempt to find ANYTHING to undermine noncreationist arguments even if they're manifestly flawed.

So it's either that or, as you say, they just don't like the solutions that people come up with and instead of proposing better ones, they try to strike the root when it doesn't need to be stricken.

I think they also don't like it because it's actually classic example of where you need the state. It's in everybody's private interest to emit lots of CO2, and nothing bad will happen, but collectively it will cause harm to everybody.

Though, this doesn't really contravene libertarian principles in the first place; it's essentially an application of the non-aggression principle. The atmosphere is a shared and vital resource, and damaging it is encroachment upon my will.

And this is why libertarianism isn't equivalent to anarchy.

Originally Posted by Xei

If the modern rise were a typical fluctuation, fluctuations have high amplitudes and last for more than a century; for the kind of 'bleeding' of data you are suggesting (and I'm not sure how that would happen or what your evidence is that ice cores have this level of inaccuracy), it would have to be so severe that it could flatten out an entire century's worth of high or low CO2 levels.

Not true. I'll need to draw a picture to explain. Also, the effect is more pronounced the more precise the ice cores are.

Screw it, it's hard to draw it in paint in a neat enough way to get my point across.

Originally Posted by khh

That isn't really feasible everywhere. If I were to live on "local goods" where I live in Norway, it's have to live on milk, ale and potatoes.

Not feasible? People have survived for millennia on what they can get locally; it's only in the last 100 years that people have been able to get food and goods from beyond their immediate area in mass quantities.

How did people live before the Industrial Revolution? Locally.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think they also don't like it because it's actually classic example of where you need the state. It's in everybody's private interest to emit lots of CO2, and nothing bad will happen, but collectively it will cause harm to everybody.

Not really true unless you know what everybody's private interests are.

Though, this doesn't really contravene libertarian principles in the first place; it's essentially an application of the non-aggression principle. The atmosphere is a shared and vital resource, and damaging it is encroachment upon my will.

Well that's why libertarians, anarchists specifically, who accept global warming aren't particularly worried about coming up with solutions. An application of property rights stemming from the NAP is a valid solution. Rothbard has a chapter on ecology in For a New Liberty if you (or anyone) wants an elementary explanation. Part II, Chapter 13, Page 317 (for the topic of pollution).

David Friedman has a section on pollution in Machinery of Freedom as well, though I haven't read it. It seems to be in a similar vein to Rothbard judging by the first sentence. Page 55 in PDF.

And this is why libertarianism isn't equivalent to anarchy.

It can be, but I think that topic was being discussed elsewhere?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Not really true unless you know what everybody's private interests are.

If your private interests are in your own wellbeing then it is totally true; you could never personally do anything to produce enough CO2 to make the slightest difference to yourself, or anybody else for that matter. There needs to be a central authority, mandated by the public, for everybody to stop.

It can be, but I think that topic was being discussed elsewhere?

Yes, Laughing Man was saying that anybody who is a libertarian is logically forced to be an anarchist, and anybody claiming to be a libertarian but not an anarchist is wrong. I think you liked the post.

Originally Posted by Xei

If your private interests are in your own wellbeing then it is totally true; you could never personally do anything to produce enough CO2 to make the slightest difference to yourself, or anybody else for that matter. There needs to be a central authority, mandated by the public, for everybody to stop.

I could point to several environmentalist folks whose private interests don't include producing mass amounts of CO2. And judging by the two chapters I just posted, it isn't necessarily true that there needs to be a central authority. There are other solutions.

Yes, Laughing Man was saying that anybody who is a libertarian is logically forced to be an anarchist, and anybody claiming to be a libertarian but not an anarchist is wrong. I think you liked the post.

For the sake of simplicity in regular conversation I don't really care to call out someone who claims to be a libertarian but then ends up being a minarchist or something. I just don't care enough to have that sort of drawn-out conversation. But I agree with LM that if you're going to claim something you might as well stay true to it.

Okay..? I didn't contradict myself, I just said I was a libertarian who wasn't an anarchist.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I could point to several environmentalist folks whose private interests don't include producing mass amounts of CO2.

Of course there are. How is that relevant?

And judging by the two chapters I just posted, it isn't necessarily true that there needs to be a central authority. There are other solutions.

Could you briefly mention a couple?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

How did people live before the Industrial Revolution?

Shitty. The solution to climate change isn't going back to agrarian times... The world's biggest polluters are the transportation and energy sectors, both of which have clean technology solutions that we don't implement. People will get serious about this once our coastal cities are under water.

Originally Posted by khh

That isn't really feasible everywhere. If I were to live on "local goods" where I live in Norway, it's have to live on milk, ale and potatoes.

You could still get it from somewhere other than China or somewhere where workers and the environment are exploited. In theory at least, I realize that's pretty difficult at the moment.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think they also don't like it because it's actually classic example of where you need the state. It's in everybody's private interest to emit lots of CO2, and nothing bad will happen, but collectively it will cause harm to everybody.

Though, this doesn't really contravene libertarian principles in the first place; it's essentially an application of the non-aggression principle. The atmosphere is a shared and vital resource, and damaging it is encroachment upon my will.

And this is why libertarianism isn't equivalent to anarchy.

That's only because the courts are utter shit. People should be being sued over this shit. Courts and organized economic ostricism would be able to do a better job of preventing polution than the government is.

I don't really care what you call yourself, their are plenty of libertarians who are minarchists rather than anarchist. If you take the principles of libertarianism to their logical conclusion then you get anarchism, however that doesn't mean that that's the most feasable thing to do at the moment(I think it might be, but thats just an opinion and not even a very certain one) so you don't neccisarily have to be an anarchist if you are a libertarian.

Do you think that an anarchic society would be a good thing ever?

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay..? I didn't contradict myself, I just said I was a libertarian who wasn't an anarchist.

Well if you're going to claim to be a libertarian you might as well stay true to it. In my and LM's mind, it doesn't stop at being for small-government.

Of course there are. How is that relevant?

You said it's in everybody's self-interest to produce lots of CO2.

I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying tbh.

Could you briefly mention a couple?

In the chapters I posted previously, the authors postulate that an application of property rights to things that are unowned may be a solution to the problem of pollution, and I tend agree with that postulation. The tragedy of the commons plays a significant role in a discussion about what to do about pollution in the air, rivers, oceans, etc. Have such things be owned in whatever manner, and now there will be actual consequences for polluting instead of waiting for the damage to start affecting everybody else.

Hey here's an idea, lets actually use the non-polluting technology we're capable of.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Hey here's an idea, lets actually use the non-polluting technology we're capable of.

That's the most Un-Patriotic idea I've ever heard... SAVING America's wilderness? YOU MUST BE A TERRORIST.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well if you're going to claim to be a libertarian you might as well stay true to it. In my and LM's mind, it doesn't stop at being for small-government.

:/

I said I was a libertarian and I never claimed to have any contentions that would exclude me from being a libertarian, so I didn't 'stop being true to what I said', did I? LM disagreed with the definition and for convenience I said I'd use his rather than have a semantic debate, even though it was very contentious.

You said it's in everybody's self-interest to produce lots of CO2.

Well that's pretty much true as far as I can tell. It's in an environmentalist's self-interest for everybody to stop producing lots of CO2, but their own production of CO2 has no ill effects and so can't really be said to be against their self-interest.

But that entire point (which is seems to lie on the semantics of 'self-interest' anyway) has no relevance to the discussion; we are talking about general principles and so the decisions of a few individuals is of no relevance; the relevant thing is that there will exist a large majority of people for whom it is in their self-interest to produce CO2, and who will do so.

In the chapters I posted previously, the authors postulate that an application of property rights to things that are unowned may be a solution to the problem of pollution, and I tend agree with that postulation. The tragedy of the commons plays a significant role in a discussion about what to do about pollution in the air, rivers, oceans, etc. Have such things be owned in whatever manner, and now there will be actual consequences for polluting instead of waiting for the damage to start affecting everybody else.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the atmosphere should be said to be collectively owned by everybody? If so that just seems like a load of unnecessary semantics, as there is already a mandate to prevent emissions according to the non-aggression principle; and at any rate, says nothing about any practical solution.

Originally Posted by Xei

:/

I said I was a libertarian and I never claimed to have any contentions that would exclude me from being a libertarian, so I didn't 'stop being true to what I said', did I? LM disagreed with the definition and for convenience I said I'd use his rather than have a semantic debate, even though it was very contentious.

If you're claiming to be a libertarian while using his definition and then say you're not an anarchist, are you not being true to your claim?

Well that's pretty much true as far as I can tell. It's in an environmentalist's self-interest for everybody to stop producing lots of CO2, but their own production of CO2 has no ill effects and so can't really be said to be against their self-interest.

But that entire point (which is seems to lie on the semantics of 'self-interest' anyway) has no relevance to the discussion; we are talking about general principles and so the decisions of a few individuals is of no relevance; the relevant thing is that there will exist a large majority of people for whom it is in their self-interest to produce CO2, and who will do so.

Well you should've clarified that it's a majority, not everybody.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the atmosphere should be said to be collectively owned by everybody? If so that just seems like a load of unnecessary semantics, as there is already a mandate to prevent emissions according to the non-aggression principle; and at any rate, says nothing about any practical solution.

Private property, if that wasn't clear.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If you're claiming to be a libertarian while using his definition and then say you're not an anarchist, are you not being true to your claim?

No but I never did that?

Well you should've clarified that it's a majority, not everybody.

I just explained that I still think it is everybody, so again this makes no sense... I just let it drop because it isn't relevant. Do you agree with what was the actual point at hand?

Private property, if that wasn't clear.

Whose private property? Who are people going to buy the atmosphere from in the first place? Surely you have to give it to everybody? In what way do you think this solves anything?

Originally Posted by StonedApe

If you look at the data nature does produce more CO2 than man, but nature also uses all the CO2 it makes plus most of what man makes. The problem is the bit extra that we make that nature can't absorb.

Plant fields of weed. Seriously we could solve the problem with this and it would also improve the soil quality and make for good farmlands later.

XD


You do bring up a good point

What a lot of people aren't considering is how much soil, grasslands, and trees are removed for modern construction. We need soil!! I consider mega mall parking lots an ecological waste, not to mention ugly, smelly, and a contributing factor to global warming with all of its heat waves. (we should tax them for not making parking garages!)

I would not be surprised if planting an X amount of trees and removing an X amount of wasteful asphalt for soil and grass - can in fact bring our system back to balance. But thats just my tree huggers idea

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Not feasible? People have survived for millennia on what they can get locally; it's only in the last 100 years that people have been able to get food and goods from beyond their immediate area in mass quantities.

How did people live before the Industrial Revolution? Locally.

Agreed, and if you can't get something in one place, either move or live without it. If you like Norway enough, you'll live on whatever grows there.