The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Tue May 14, 2019 11:25 pm

boda wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:30 pm
Dechen Norbu wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:46 pm
We all know I think attaching other agendas to climate change is problematic. We are not going to agree. So let's leave at that.
I don't know if 'agenda' is the right word to use since reducing anything that contributes to climate change is on the same todo list. Also, you haven't as yet made a convincing argument that considering multiple approaches simultaneously is problematic.
By "agenda" I mean a motivation other than fighting climate changes. Piggybacking while mostly wanting to fulfill other goals. I wouldn't be surprised to see some militant vegetarians denying climate change if it was proven meat consumption helped solving the problem (as some say, although I don't find it credible. They too have an agenda).

Kind regards.

DharmaN00b
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:12 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by DharmaN00b » Wed May 15, 2019 12:12 am

If we have an inner turmoil then what tends to happen is that we dump or project this onto others. :thinking:

'Carry me' the war cry of younglings. :tantrum:

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 12:20 am

You guys keep writing interesting stuff and you reel me back while I'm putting more important things on hold! :lol:
Wayfarer wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:20 pm
I agree with Seeker's point - that one of the many consequences of climate change is that society is going to need to adapt alternative food sources, and reduce reliance on meat.
I think that's indisputable. But it will only become relevant if things get more or less sorted out by acting now in more important areas.
Unless some serious measures are taken now, I'm not sure we will have vegetables either. If things get as tough as predicted, what do you think will happen? War will be our end. We won't go slow due to food shortage. The most likely scenario is WW III. If things get really bad, the type of people that will rise to power will make Trump seem like an angel. Our dietary choices will matter little.
There might, after all, be actual large-scale famines and/or food shortages before too long, what with the mushrooming global population, and the decline in arable land due to environmental changes. I noticed a few years back, an small upsurge of articles about whether people could adapt to eating food derived from insects. The story died down again, but I had the suspicion that someone was putting up a trial balloon about it.
There are already episodes of large scale famine, but on third and second world countries. The moment they hit hard first world countries, it's open war. We won't have time to adapt. I don't want to sound like a catastrophist, but I don't see a slow fading if things get worse fast. It's not climate changes that will kill us. We will take care of that first. Some people seem unaware of that scenario.
Accordingly, it's no coincidence that meat replacement food technology companies Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have both had very successful IPO's in the recent past.

David Lee, CFO for Impossible Foods, said “We have cracked the molecular code for meat and built an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio and brand. Our global financial partners are supporting a technology powerhouse that will transform the global food system.”
I'm aware of that. It's fascinating and a possible solution, but so far it's economically unviable. The energy requirements of such labs in large scale make them a pipe dream unless we make some serious breakthrough in energy production.
Let's hope they can do it, because it is something that needs to happen, along with electric vehicles, universal solar power, and many other factors.
They need time. Lots of it. And a shit load of public funding. But if we lose public opinion on what needs to be done right now to counteract climatic changes, such will not happen. So it's important to tread lightly and choose battles wisely. If we spook people by telling them they have to change their diets to fight climate changes, a minor point compared to what really needs to be done, support is lost. Then nothing gets done. If we let people push their own agendas piggybacking climate changes discussion we are being unwise.

By far, vegetarianism is not the worse agenda being pushed, but many people react strongly against it. Maybe it's because vegans (and unfortunately vegetarians by association) are often compared to jehova's witnesses, pestering others with their beliefs, pushing too hard, becoming intolerant.
The vegan ideal is admirable. I have the deepest respect for it. Most vegans I know are not and I know a few. Some have serious eating disorders. That's how something really admirable turns to shit. It only needs to be represented by the wrong people.

Gladly, I have some vegetarian friends and teachers who are amazing human beings. Otherwise I would think being a vegetarian seriously affected the though process and behavior in a very negative way.

So I guess this may become an unnecessary distraction when compared to the overall scenario. We just need to give voice to enough militant vegetarians. This thread is a good example.

Johnny also made very good points on his post. I couldn't agree more. Saying this here saves me from cluttering this topic more than I already did.

Btw, did you see my comments to your post before this conversation about vegetarianism started? I was hopping to get your opinion on that.

All the best!

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4835
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Wayfarer » Wed May 15, 2019 12:39 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:did you see my comments to your post before this conversation about vegetarianism started?
Ah, yes, sorry, went back to them. So, I don't think there are, or should be, two sides to the climate change issue. There's only one reality, one fact of the matter, which is that human activity is drastically altering the composition of the atmosphere, and this is having huge consequences for life on earth. There is no room for disagreement or equivocation about this fact.

The problem is it has become politicized, and I think the blame for politicizing it lies wholly and solely with those who deny the science. Part of the way they politicize is, is by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, by undermining the science, and by equating it with a 'green-left plot to overthrow capitalism'. All of that is extremely dangerous. The world should have started paying attention to this problem 40 years ago, we've practically thrown away the window of opportunity to prevent it.

So, sure, a lot of the 'green-left' political types have piled on the bandwagon, and many of them are also pretty fanatical. I've actually stood at voting booths and handed out How to Vote cards for the Greens in the past, but I'd never do it now. Why? Because a lot of them ARE totally anti-business, they hate capitalism, and more than a few of them want to destroy Western culture altogether. So, I guess there are 'two sides' in that respect, but there really ought not to be. It's a factual problem that needs an urgent and science-based solution.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 1:35 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:39 am
Dechen Norbu wrote:did you see my comments to your post before this conversation about vegetarianism started?
Ah, yes, sorry, went back to them. So, I don't think there are, or should be, two sides to the climate change issue. There's only one reality, one fact of the matter, which is that human activity is drastically altering the composition of the atmosphere, and this is having huge consequences for life on earth. There is no room for disagreement or equivocation about this fact.
You saw my argument that governments should have treated global warming theory AS IF it was a fact, right? That was tantamount. The opportunity was lost.

I'm more cautions than you when it comes to considering a theory a fact. This tends to backfire, and it did. That's why now we call it climate change and not global warming. Every time predictions fail, and a few did, you see opportunists taking shots at the whole theory. We need to be careful. We laugh today of yesterday scientific "facts" and future generations will laugh at ours. If we survive as a civilization, that is. So we need to think tactically if we don't want to expose the flank to vultures whose only concern is their own wealth and power.

It's a theory I truly believe in, but the consensus is not as universal as you make it. I tend to be skeptic, in the real sense of the word, so I tried to listen to several opinions on this matter. Some are clearly bogus and agenda driven. However, there are reputable scientists that aren't yet convinced and they present good reasons. Generally they accept that we are altering the composition of the atmosphere, but they have problems with how the influence on climate is modeled, its impact on the biosphere, the time it will take and so on. I'm not a climatologist, but having scientists arguing about a theory is not bad, as long as they do it without ulterior motivations (like funding, chasing the money to where it goes, being on the payroll of companies, ideological preferences, etc.). So, scientists being proper scientists doing science. Shutting down opinions in science unless they are clearly wrong is terrible.

However, this is all fun and games as long as it is kept between scientists.
Governments should have acted AS IF the theory was correct from the beginning, even when it had problems. The consequences of not doing so were too dire. But, instead, it went as you said.
The problem is it has become politicized, and I think the blame for politicizing it lies wholly and solely with those who deny the science.
Agree without the solely. To those I add the ones whose motives were much more prosaic than fighting climate changes. They saw an opportunity to make money, they used it and as a result more public resistance to the theory was created. It's no coincidence that they've been losing seats. I'm not talking about the US specifically. Agendas on both sides. Politics are both problem and solution (as long as they know their place). That sentence you quoted earlier: perfect..

Part of the way they politicize is, is by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, by undermining the science, and by equating it with a 'green-left plot to overthrow capitalism'. All of that is extremely dangerous. The world should have started paying attention to this problem 40 years ago, we've practically thrown away the window of opportunity to prevent it.
Couldn't agree more. Those bastards! :lol:
So, sure, a lot of the 'green-left' political types have piled on the bandwagon, and many of them are also pretty fanatical. I've actually stood at voting booths and handed out How to Vote cards for the Greens in the past, but I'd never do it now. Why? Because a lot of them ARE totally anti-business, they hate capitalism, and more than a few of them want to destroy Western culture altogether. So, I guess there are 'two sides' in that respect, but there really ought not to be. It's a factual problem that needs an urgent and science-based solution.
Yes. Agendas, agendas.... just muddling the problem and making solutions harder to get, even when they support the theory. That's the point I was making in my dialogue with seeker. Gladly, IF he has an agenda, it's much more benign.

Thanks for commenting.

All the best!

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by seeker242 » Wed May 15, 2019 2:15 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:46 pm
We all know I think attaching other agendas to climate change is problematic. We are not going to agree. So let's leave at that.
We know you accuse others of doing that, when all they do is present facts regarding climate change... Stifling discussion of facts about climate change is in no way helpful regardless of what you believe would work or not. Stifling discussion, is itself, muddling the problem.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4835
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Wayfarer » Wed May 15, 2019 2:20 am

I really don't think there was any attempt to 'stifle' an issue - the point has been made and, I hope, resolved. Let's not argue about arguing as it will only derail the thread.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

boda
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by boda » Wed May 15, 2019 5:31 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:25 pm
boda wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:30 pm
Dechen Norbu wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:46 pm
We all know I think attaching other agendas to climate change is problematic. We are not going to agree. So let's leave at that.
I don't know if 'agenda' is the right word to use since reducing anything that contributes to climate change is on the same todo list. Also, you haven't as yet made a convincing argument that considering multiple approaches simultaneously is problematic.
By "agenda" I mean a motivation other than fighting climate changes. Piggybacking while mostly wanting to fulfill other goals. I wouldn't be surprised to see some militant vegetarians denying climate change if it was proven meat consumption helped solving the problem (as some say, although I don't find it credible. They too have an agenda).

Kind regards.
I had to read that a couple of times. You’ve heard of a theory that meat consumption reduces greenhouse gasses?

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Vasana » Wed May 15, 2019 8:50 am

Dechen, it took me a while to understand your angle here. My thoughts were echoing what Seeker and Jonny said throughput and still do but then I think I got what you were highlighting after wayfarer's comment.

I can see how the politicization and divisive-agenda-piggybacking on top of what's an already divisive topic can actually hamper meaningful progress and actually serve to derail the very efforts and goals of those "piggy-backing' -while also increasing general scepticism, distrust or denial. Its a really important topic.

I wonder to what degree that insight can ever be applied in practical terms, either in communications, campaigns or legislation. Like Jonny said, these are systemic problems. A reductionist approach by focusing on indidvual aspects of a system works when fixing something like an engine but not complex adaptive systems like an entire globalized society.

The Stockholm resilience centre's work on planetary boundaries is great at showing how there exists a safe operating space for planet earth and how the defining boundary thresholds are all interconnected. These issues are connected and so the mixing of 'agendas' is unavoidable. Below shown with Kate raworths doughnut economics model.



Image
How food connects the sustainable development goals .

Unifying diverse "agendas" isn't always a bad thing either - an example being the SDGs (which are not perfect but serve as an example of having diverse goals/ agendas held in place by a relatively cohesive umbrella) - but even the U.N's and IPCCs efforts are still met with scepticism in ways that Dechen bought up here. One example being the belief that most individual scientists are well funded and motivated by personal gains - sure there is corruption in science but for the most part the above is just not true - most scientists arent getting paid well if at all for a lot of their work. Especially in climate science. It's the efforts to *collate* and synthesize their findings in reports that are funded well. And yet a distrust of the stereotypical 'rich greedy scientists' and 'globalist agendas' still persists on the fringes of discussion - muddying thr water and obfuscating what needs focusing on. Kathryn Heyho's 'global weirding' project tackles a lot of these false yet persistent arguments.

The real focus needs to be on the precautionary principle. Even if a person is sceptical, in matters as potentially grave as this, it's best to be cautious. Or to act as If the original theories were agreed upon as true from the beginning as Dechen suggested would of resulted in a better state of affairs today. The irony is that we are far more cautious in issues of potential but not certain personal health but can't seem to be able to see why it makes sense to scale up that caution to a planetary level. If you're overweight, smoke and drink too much and don't exercise and it takes health scares and emergency room visits to get you to change your lifestyle, what health scares will society need to face to treat this issue with the remedial and harm reducing action needed?

A good example of progress here is the recent wave of civil disobedience coordinated by the international Extinction Rebellion movement. By causing physical and financial obstruction (roadblocks ,vandalism, and deliberately seeking arrest ) to put a spotlight on the climate emergency, the UK govt has now formally recognized that climate change is better spoken of now as a climate emergency. Hopefully over govts will follow suit.

So much of this is just memetics and framing- recognizing our situation as an emergency is a first step towards actually dealing with it.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 10:20 am

Vasana, you understood each of my ideas perfectly.
You also did a much better job explaining them.
It doesn't help not being a native speaker, posting from a very annoying virtual keyboard on my smartphone and, usually, being on a hurry by knowing I'm leaving other things left undone. I had promised myself to use these boards to the minimum and, yet, here we are...

I'm not sure, however, if I left you guys thinking that I'm against a multifactorial approach to the problem, efforts and adaptations having to be made on several fronts. I'm not, at all. I can't see any other way.

What displeases me greatly is knowing there are groups of people using such a serious situation to advance their own ends. They agree with the theory supporting human caused climate changes mainly because it suits their own ends, whatever they may be, or ride it for purposes other than solving the problem. The extent to which they are really concerned with the current state of affairs vary. I don't like it on principle (it's dishonest) and because it may end up introducing unnecessary friction, especially if the agendas being collated are divisive by nature. You also understood this point perfectly and why I made it, recognizing its importance in more ways than one.

Thank you for the excellent post.

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 10:56 am

boda wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:31 am
I had to read that a couple of times. You’ve heard of a theory that meat consumption reduces greenhouse gasses?
:lol: yes. How a massive change to a vegetarian diet would make the situation worse.

We all heard that if you inquire a complex phenomena with a biased approach and hammer data enough with particular statistic methods, chosen with a previously intended result in mind, you can make a case for practically anything, right?

If you know your statistics (I'm not an expert, but a masters degree in psychology gave me some preparation), you'll have a blast going through it. It's a clear example of statistical manipulation at it's finest, in my opinion.
Do you want me to get it for you? I read it a couple years back, but I might still find it.

User avatar
Miroku
Global Moderator
Posts: 1313
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Miroku » Wed May 15, 2019 11:03 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 10:56 am
boda wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:31 am
I had to read that a couple of times. You’ve heard of a theory that meat consumption reduces greenhouse gasses?
:lol: yes. How a massive change to a vegetarian diet would make the situation worse.

We all heard that if you inquire a complex phenomena with a biased approach and hammer data enough with particular statistic methods, chosen with a previously intended result in mind, you can make a case for practically anything, right?

If you know your statistics (I'm not an expert, but a masters degree in psychology gave me some preparation), you'll have a blast going through it. It's a clear example of statistical manipulation at it's finest, in my opinion.
Do you want me to get it for you? I read it a couple years back, but I might still find it.
Could be interesting! :D

But can we agree that livestock should be at the very least cut down? I mean there are other problems with it for example the huge amount of dung. Also huge amounts of water and grains going into their feeding.
A boat delivers you to the other riverbank.
A needle stitches up your clothes.
A horse takes you where you want to go.
Bodhicitta will bring you to Buddhahood.
~ Khunu Lama Rinpoche

Even non-buddhists have many virtuous accomplishments
~ Jigten Sumgon

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Vasana » Wed May 15, 2019 11:06 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 10:20 am

What displeases me greatly is knowing there are groups of people using such a serious situation to advance their own ends. They agree with the theory supporting human caused climate changes mainly because it suits their own ends, whatever they may be, or ride it for purposes other than solving the problem.

The extent to which they are really concerned with the current state of affairs vary. I don't like it on principle (it's dishonest) and because it may end up introducing unnecessary friction, especially if the agendas being collated are divisive by nature. You also understood this point perfectly and why I made it, recognizing its importance in more ways than one.
I agree but also think that occasionally some benefit for the overall movement can still arise from this. An easy example is supermarkets who jump on the current anti-plastics and palm oil trend. It's clearly about their own profit since they're not really calling for much meaningful sustainability elsewhere but it still contributes to the public dialogue by brining the topic to the table.

It's also often hard to distinguish between unnecessary friction and uncomfortable-but necessary-friction. Changing diets, land and water footprints is both necessary and uncomfortable for governments and individuals which is partly why it's such a hard sell. So much of the resistance towards change is because there's huge focus on what we have to give up or renounce ( meat, flying, exotic food, petrol cars etc) and how costly those infrastructure and lifestyle changes would be rather than focusing on what we could gain in the process of transformation. If we talk about what we need to give up it needs to be tempered with what we can gain to avoid all of the friction around it- unfortunately 'survival of humanity and all life on earth' as a gain is a little too direct and indigestible for most people, even if it's where our eyes should be focused. How to dilute what shouldn't need watering down in the first place? Unless the alternative is appealing it will always get shut down. Promising better tatsing tofu and meatless burgers probably won't make the cut!
Last edited by Vasana on Wed May 15, 2019 11:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 11:07 am

Miroku wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:03 am
Dechen Norbu wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 10:56 am
boda wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 5:31 am
I had to read that a couple of times. You’ve heard of a theory that meat consumption reduces greenhouse gasses?
:lol: yes. How a massive change to a vegetarian diet would make the situation worse.

We all heard that if you inquire a complex phenomena with a biased approach and hammer data enough with particular statistic methods, chosen with a previously intended result in mind, you can make a case for practically anything, right?

If you know your statistics (I'm not an expert, but a masters degree in psychology gave me some preparation), you'll have a blast going through it. It's a clear example of statistical manipulation at it's finest, in my opinion.
Do you want me to get it for you? I read it a couple years back, but I might still find it.
Could be interesting! :D

But can we agree that livestock should be at the very least cut down? I mean there are other problems with it for example the huge amount of dung. Also huge amounts of water and grains going into their feeding.
That study was completely biased. Of course it would be better if livestock was cut down. Better still would be if most mankind was mainly vegetarian for many, many motives, exempting some cases for reasons outside the scope of this topic.

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 11:24 am

Vasana wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:06 am
I agree but also think that occasionally some benefit for the overall movement can still arise from this. An easy example is supermarkets who jump on the current anti-plastics and palm oil trend. It's clearly about their own profit since they're not really calling for much meaningful sustainability elsewhere but it still contributes to the public dialogue by brining the topic to the table.
Agree. At least that, although the hypocrisy is easily perceived and criticized. You take your own recyclable bag to carry plastic bottled water, plastic bottled food, plastic bottled household cleaning products, plastic bottled hygiene products, etc., all this from a supermarket made with literally tons of plastic material. If you fail to bring a big enough bag to carry all that plastic, you'll have to buy a (guess what?) plastic bag or a few, but paying 10 times more because of a tax.
I wonder if this has any real benefit. People used to utilize those bags to dispose of garbage. Now they buy plastic bags for the same effect.
People are not always stupid all the time. They see it for what it is and often it backlashes. They scorn climate changes theories as being scams to take their money. In the end I'm not really sure how helpful such measures really are, but I do understand your overall perspective and tend to agree. Some parallel agendas can be helpful (although I still dislike the principle :lol: ).
It's also often hard to distinguish between unnecessary friction and uncomfortable-but necessary-friction. Changing diets, land and water footprints is both necessary and uncomfortable for governments and individuals which is partly why it's such a hard sell. So much of the resistance towards change is because there's huge focus on what we have to give up or renounce ( meat, flying, exotic food, petrol cars etc) and how costly those infrastructure and lifestyle changes would be rather than focusing on what we could gain in the process of transformation. If we talk about what we need to give up it needs to be tempered with what we can gain to avoid all of the friction around it- unfortunately 'survival of humanity and all life on earth' as a gain is a little too direct and indigestible for most people, even if it's where our eyes should be focused. How to dilute what shouldn't need watering down in the first place? Unless the alternative is appealing it will always get shut down. Promising better tatsing tofu and meatless burgers probably won't make the cut!
Exactly.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Vasana » Wed May 15, 2019 12:12 pm

Dechen Norbu wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:24 am
If you fail to bring a big enough bag to carry all that plastic, you'll have to buy a (guess what?) plastic bag or a few, but paying 10 times more because of a tax.
I wonder if this has any real benefit. People used to utilize those bags to dispose of garbage. Now they buy plastic bags for the same effect.
Here in the U.K at least- the plastic bag tax has seen a reduction in bags ending up as coastal ocean litter. Which sounds nice but any long term benefit is probably hampered by all of the other plastics being manufactured. But it still shows there can be some tangible benefits. UK supermarkets often donate this money to charity too ( but this is also just another form of greenwashing in the guise of corporate-social-responsibility for those of us more cynically inclinded)

Also, taxes aren't always a bad thing but they're the hardest sell of them all at a time when everyone feels they're being screwed over by taxes (ignoring the fact that we probably loose more money from the super-rich elites' and corporations' tax evasion and exemptions). A better way of looking at things is to price things according to their true cost which would include their ecological, social cost etc. The same applies for food, carbon , petrol, water etc. We're used to experiencing artificially low prices for these items because the environmental impacts and literal costs -for fixes to the problems they create later on, aren't factored in to the final price.

If you're going to get screwed over by being taxed anyway I would prefer them being eco-taxes rather than portions of my taxed money going towards the military industrial complex :?
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by seeker242 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:34 pm

Miroku wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:03 am

Could be interesting! :D

But can we agree that livestock should be at the very least cut down? I mean there are other problems with it for example the huge amount of dung. Also huge amounts of water and grains going into their feeding.
Not to mention the excessive removal of forests and grasslands, both caused by excessive land usage. Forests and grasslands are some of the best carbon sinks on the whole planet.
Halting the trends in motion will require more than just phasing out fossil fuels. In fact, the paths to halting global temperature increases of 1.5 or 2 degrees C, the two goals outlined by the IPCC, rely in some way on adopting methods of sucking CO2 from the sky. Those include planting trees, conserving existing forests and grasslands, and capturing CO2 from power plants and factories.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... use-gases/
Allowing currently cultivated land to return to it's natural forest and grassland state is one of the best methods of "sucking CO2 from the sky"
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Dechen Norbu » Wed May 15, 2019 1:09 pm

Vasana wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:12 pm
Here in the U.K at least- the plastic bag tax has seen a reduction in bags ending up as coastal ocean litter. Which sounds nice but any long term benefit is probably hampered by all of the other plastics being manufactured. But it still shows there can be some tangible benefits. UK supermarkets often donate this money to charity too ( but this is also just another form of greenwashing in the guise of corporate-social-responsibility for those of us more cynically inclinded)
It's good news if tangible benefits are being seen after that measure was implemented. I don't know how you treat urban disposals there, probably better than us in Portugal, but I don't understand clearly how such benefit may derive from that.
Here people used those bags to dispose of garbage. So they were placed in garbage containers and then garbage was processed. If this helps a lot solving the problem of whole bags ending up on nature (with a clear impact on wildlife), I don't know if it helps with plastic microparticles. So, most of these bags didn't end up on nature frequently. The thing is that people still use plastic bags to dispose of garbage. The only difference is that now they pay for them. These plastic bags go through exactly the same processing circuit, so I don't see how replacing a plastic bag for another helps in any way. Maybe random littering diminishes a bit because garbage bags are not ergonomic to carry around, but doesn't seem much relevant overall. Still, if that outcome is tangible, great, however it happens. Maybe people payed more attention to the subject and changed their habits a little. Or maybe they keep those bags and reutilize them since now they don't come by that easily. In the big picture it amounts to practically nothing, but it isn't, and something little is better than nothing. Still, all is left to do concerning plastics. It's dreadful. I have a personal abhorrence towards them! Can't wait to see useless plastics gone, but substituting them won't be easy, especially while keeping the prices low. Here supermarkets donate nothing or near to nothing and when they do, it's for their own advantage. No true altruism there.
Also, taxes aren't always a bad thing but they're the hardest sell of them all at a time when everyone feels they're being screwed over by taxes (ignoring the fact that we probably loose more money from the super-rich elites' and corporations' tax evasion and exemptions). A better way of looking at things is to price things according to their true cost which would include their ecological, social cost etc. The same applies for food, carbon , petrol, water etc. We're used to experiencing artificially low prices for these items because the environmental impacts and literal costs -for fixes to the problems they create later on, aren't factored in to the final price.

If you're going to get screwed over by being taxed anyway I would prefer them being eco-taxes rather than portions of my taxed money going towards the military industrial complex :?
I don't particularly have a problem with taxes. If we want a functional society, they are foundational. On principle, I very much agree with them. That said, I have a really big problem with how taxpayers money is used. When I see taxpayers hard earned money being used to save banks who toyed with our money, by playing a very dangerous game out of greed, I get really upset. Of course we can't let the banks sink. It's our money there. Iceland did that, but it's a very low populated and quite homogenous country. Felt good seeing some justice, but we can't do that here. Still, the ones responsible for such catastrophe weren't held accountable. They screwed us all, with the help of imoral politicians (the bumpy road to political power is extremely expensive and the luxurious road out of it is the same). I get concerned when privately owned debt was bought by the state and became public, making the middle class pay for the recklessness of the super rich while they don't face justice with real consequences. Billions were handled to them while children were treated on a temporary wing built out of containers, for years, in one of the most reputable public hospitals. Finally it will be solved but it took what 5, 10 years? Banks had the funds in months. So, that's my problem, not with taxes, but how the public money is wasted.
Still, as you, if I'm going to be screwed by taxes, I too prefer the eco kind!

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1320
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: The Planet's on F****** Fire says Bill Nye

Post by Sherab » Wed May 15, 2019 11:14 pm

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 8:18 pm
A huge paradigm shift in how people live is all that will change it. It can come through us being forced to by the cataclysmic stuff one can imagine, a gradual shift to more sustainable ways of living, or both. I imagine it will be some degree of both, but can't predict the ratio, and neither can anyone else it seems.
The problem is that when that happens, the climate probably would have gone pass at least one or more of the tipping points, the point from which there is no return.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G25dGJ3yUYk

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests