care-tags.org

One of my favorite ways to keep up with some of the news is PRI's "Living On Earth" podcast.

http://loe.org/

They have a lot of knowledgable and high-profile guests, and really put out a great program every week.

BBC's "Costing The Earth" podcast is also very good, and often UK-specific.

Sure. What's the point of saying that though? I don't think we need any more depressing talk. We need to join forces to try to come up with solutions so that the future looks a little bit less bleak

I see, so you're saying you're just more enlightened.

There is a solution, there are many solutions, there are solutions we haven't even discovered and your attitude on a wider scale only retards that. Keeping within your analogy (even though I think it's a poor one because the situation is far more complex), the state of 'terminal illness' has changed over time owing to hard work and a refusal of doom. Illnesses that used to be terminal are now treated, most recently HIV used to be a death sentence - but its now a life-long condition and I'm certain it'll end up being just another curable disease. My mum has had two maladies that would have been terminal just a few decades ago, and I'm happy to report that she's very much alive and kicking because no one researching and developing solutions for the impossible, terminal illness decided it would probably just be better to focus on making her 'comfortable'.

I know you're a leading scientist in this field and also a time traveller with insider knowledge about the great extinction of man but I happen to think you might be wrong about it all being doom and gloom - because we are clearly very interested in self preservation as a species.

I think spinning this off into "I'm saying we should be more compassionate" is a nice touch though.

I see you're wavering btwn anger, denial (ignorance), and bargaining (with logic fallacies) phases!

And hubris of modern man's desire to be master (controller) of an environment it's already destroyed beyond repair (other than extinction of most species).

Super great response there but I think, in this case, you might just be a little too liberal with your use of amateur psychology.

I'm hopeful for an edit that will turn that second bit into a sentence but I think you're saying I am in three phases of loss at the same time (not in order) and an additional phase that you have introduced called 'huberis' (which I would have actually put under denial, but okay).

Okay, let's both agree that you have gone straight to acceptance (in another framework I don't think fits) but I think that must be very sad for you and I hope that at least your idea of compassion positively effects the situation.

I think it's pretty obvious that we'll never get back to the Pristine Environment (tm) that Sierra Club pamphlets like to harp about. That doesn't mean all is doomed. The earth, its cycles, and its inhabitants are in intensely complex system. We don't have the capability of modeling it. A system with so many moving parts has a large number of stability points.

Our responsibility is to ensure that the transition between stability points is the least catastrophic shift possible. I read a great phrase in a book: "Manage the unavoidable, avoid the unmanageable." Seeing as we can essentially treat CO2 emissions as a function of time, the "unmanageable" gets more potent every day. Excited for this summit. The challenge ahead can be the greatest victory in the history of humankind.

In terms of solutions to climate change, check out Carbon Fee and Dividend, , through Citizens' Climate Lobby, an organization I volunteer for. It's a remarkable solution in that it was (1) created by George Shultz, a widely respected Republican and former Secretary of State, (2) is projected to grow the U.S. economy and any economy in which a similar price-dividend program is implemented, (3) requires very little increase in government regulations, so Republicans, conservatives, Libertarians can all get behind it and many have already, and (4) works well within the UNFCCC programs already established as well as cap and trade systems, and is implementable in any country. B.C. Canada already has something like this in place. I have reservations about the policy's encouragement of economic growth, but it's a realistic policy that works well in the world we have today.

Similar policies are increasingly being discussed in the UNFCCC and avenues for direct citizen participation are as well. One arm of Citizens' Climate Lobby works there and with World We Want . Each evening, a consensus agreement is made in the climate talks, and a draft document is completed and is now going to be published on this platform, each night, for annotation. Anyone in the world with a computer can get online and comment on the document, voicing their concerns, desires, feelings, etc. No UN delegate is going to want to be the only one in the morning that hasn't read what the citizens of the world have said, so this is essentially a way to directly input citizen voices without even asking for it. It's been a few months since I've been around this, but I think World We Want is the correct platform. I've personally spoken with the guy that leads this arm of CCL. Very, very good things are happening here. Check him out on instagram @poeteconomist.

Overall, Citizens' Climate Lobby is an incredible organization. Everything that we do is based on respect, appreciation, and connecting over common values. In this way, we're connecting with people across boundaries on the issue of climate change. We're alleviating some of the intense partisanship going on right now in the U.S. We've made significant inroads with Republican members of congress and conservative voices. In October, 12 House Republicans wrote a resolution (House Res. 424) that stated that human-induced climate change is real and the federal government has a responsibility to find and implement solutions to it, and CCL worked very closely with those MoCs in the drafting of the resolution. We were only founded in 2007, and now we have members in every congressional district in the U.S. and in the last one year we've more than quadrupled our membership (4,000 to 18,000).

This summer, 900 of us went to D.C. and met with almost every single congressional office to speak about Carbon Fee and Dividend. I met with three there, and in August I met my own representative in person. Citizens' Climate Lobby has shown me that there are still bits and pieces of our democracy that are still intact, and it's shown me that I can be an engaged and effective citizen for a cause that I care about. And the people in the organization have shown me what can be accomplished when a group of determined, passionate people support each other and work together toward something good.

I sometimes feel hopeless about the whole damn thing too. Hopeless and pissed off. But I feel that way less often now than I did before, because there are real solutions out there, and there are people that are working tirelessly to make sure that they become a reality. Join us.

Bela Lelands position is quite nihilist what are your thoughts on the matter please

I don't know anything about philosophy but I do believe there's a specific thread for that. Even if "true" knowledge and understanding is futile/a projection/shadow in a cave(?) I'd rather not let that get in the way of at least an attempt to right the world.

Jonrisk sent me a cool snippet from NPR's Planet Money about Carbon Offsets. The takeaway is that they help some, but they only excuse bad behaviour. It's a short listen, and the economics of climate change is something I'd love to hear more about. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... oney-trees

the best way to alleviate risks from climate change is to lift people out of poverty through economic development / growth (if someone disagrees please let me know). the question is whether developing countries can grow in a way that doesn't make climate change worse?? should we allow these countries to pollute more in the short term? how do we manage our resources when emerging economies like india, china, bangladesh, parts of africa etc, want to grow, and that growth involves industry that will pollute. the west got away with it. but what do we do now?

which discusses whether, for india, chinese levels of growth demands chinese levels of pollution.

I believe that India is on-board with clean initiatives, but are asking for either money / cheaper access to patented technology in order to aid it.

Quick search reveals , but that's not where I read it from.

2.7 C the new "target" LMAO:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-cl ... kmuw5.html

We already have 6 C locked in btw for all you gen Y, Z or iphoners.

Leland you started off entertaining but its getting quite boring now. You're fast becoming the Donald Trump of this thread.

I thought this was an interesting read about the possibility of limiting future world growth in order to prevent climate change: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/busin ... rowth.html

Additionally, I've read a bit lately about how investing in nuclear power, in the US at least, is one major untapped solution that would nix most of our carbon-related issues. Why do people think that it isn't really being considered an option, at least by the mainstream? Does anyone here have some incredibly moving reason not to use nuclear power that I hadn't fully considered?

Jesus, I had typed out a thorough response to that article , but I lost my connection when I went to submit it and I lost everything. This is relevant to your question too, .

But basically I read that article today too and thought it was very interesting. What I was said in my post is that Porter is getting at something true here with his claim that economic growth created the conditions for democracy, reduced conflict, and increased social equality. I have not yet accepted his claim that growth is solely responsible because the social changes that he describes have taken place across centuries and continents and are likely to have other interacting causes. However, the key point, as noted in his paraphrase of Martin Wolf, is that this growth has to be received equitably by everyone in the society for it to create these valued social changes. It is true that more equal societies are more sustainable -- in terms of the social order, economics, and ecology. Most growth that is promoted by politicians, businesspeople, and so on, is not this kind of growth. The kind of growth that they promote is not equitably distributed. Thus those valued and desired social changes and the sustainability of societies and the planetary ecosystem will not occur within this current paradigm of liberal capitalism and rapacious pursuit of growth. It would also be helpful if growth were slowed. And maintaining an equal and well-off society in terms of racial and gender equality, lack of class conflict, quality healthcare and education for all, intensive public participation in government, ecological agriculture, social cohesion, service to community as opposed to individualistic motives, and community strength and resilience, in the face of slow, slow economic growth (GDP) is possible, and revolutionary Cuba is a fantastic example of that.

In conclusion, growth will achieve those social benefits that Porter lists if the fruits of growth are distributed equitably across the population of a society. This is not the case in the current paradigm of growth, and is thus unsustainable. Growth as is conventionally thought of cannot be a solution to climate change. It should be more dispersed and slowed.

I'd actually like to amend my statement because I haven't yet read enough about the idea of de-growth to discount it. So I am not convinced that growth is necessary.

@Ques

Nothing too surprising about why the US is reluctant to utilize more nuclear energy. No new nuclear plants have been built in years, and there's a lot of red tape. Even if the US aggressively pursued a nuclear energy program it would be years before they could reap any of the benefits, and most people aren't concerned with long term solutions. However small a possibility, nuclear meltdown is always a concern. Since all plans for new nuclear facilities more or less stopped after the Three Mile Island incident, I think that the potential consequences of such a disaster are seen as too severe to risk.

Assuming a nuclear program was developed, there's no place to storage spent nuclear material. Yucca Mountain has been discussed for years, but it's not really a viable solution. If I recall correctly, it's close enough to underground aquifers to contaminate the local groundwater and no other storage facilities have been seriously discussed. On top of that, nuclear isn't a sustainable source of energy. Sure, it's got a much longer horizon than fossil fuels, but nuclear energy will eventually run out too. So the people that aren't concerned about climate change favor sticking with fossil fuels because it's the least expensive option and already has the infrastructure in place, while the people most concerned about climate change would prefer a more sustainable energy source.

cop21 deal has been signed! let's celebrate with some vintage tshirts!


coke tshirt made from recycled bottles